IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12362 of 2002 1. Narendra Nath Tiwary, son of late Anand Nath Tiwary, Resident of Anand Niketan, Mohalla Dahiyawan Tola, P.O. Chapra, P.S. Chapra Town, District Saran. 2. Dr. Prabhawati Singh Chouhan, Daughter of Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, Resident of Prabhu Nath Nagar, P.O. Tari, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District Saran. 3. Birendra Prasad Yadav, Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Resident of Ojha Toli, Ratanpura, P.O. Chapra, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District Saran. 4. Dr. Ram Narayan Roy, Son of Shri Giriwar Roy, Resident of Mohalla Mauna Koiri Tola, P.O. Chapra, P.S. Chapra Town, District Saran. 5. Chiranjiv Lochan, Son of Shri Kamleshwari Prasad, Resident of Brahmani Ghat, P.S. Civil Lines, District Gaya. 6. Bijaya Pratap Kumar, Son of Shri Sheo Nath Kumar, Resident of Village Perhauni Kapoor, P.O. Perbauni Kapoor, P.S. Patahi, District East Champaran. 7. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Son of Shri Krishna Mohan Prasad Verma, Resident of Prabhu Nath Nagar (West), P.O. Tari, P.S. Chapra Sadar, District Saran. 8. Dr. Prabhu Narain Rai, Son of Sri Nand Kishore Rai, Resident of Bhagwan Bazar, Near F.C.I. (Godown), P.O. Chapra, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District Saran. --------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur, thrugh its Vice Chancellor. 4. The Registrar, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur. 5. Jai Prakash University, Chapra through its Vice Chancellor. 6. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 28.06.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. Counsels for the Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University and Jai Prakash University are present. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- 2 “(i) For quashing of various orders contained in Anenxure-1 series in relation to the petitioners so far it relate to their fixation of pay on the post of Reader in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000 instead of Rs. 3700- 5700. (ii) For quashing of order of the State Govt. issued on 7.8.89 (Annexure-2), if it is made applicable in relation to fixation of pay of the petitioners on the post of Reader. (iii) For a direction on the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners on the post of Reader in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 and to pay arrear of difference of salary inclusive of annual increments retrospectively with effect from the date the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Reader.” From reading of the aforementioned prayer, it would be clear that the re- fixation of salary of the petitioners is a fallout of a Government decision dated 7.8.1989. The petitioners on account of such order were definitely subjected to a lesser pay-scale, being reduced from Rs. 3700-5700/- to Rs. 3000-5000/- but this writ application 3 was filed after almost thirteen years of the issuance of such Government resolution. That apart, the validity of such resolution and the consequential order of the University in similar cases was gone into by this Court in CWJC No. 10838 of 1995 and this Court by a judgment dated 21.2.2000 had upheld the Government resolution dated 7.8.1989 by holding that the classification of payment of salary to the Readers with the cutoff date of 1.3.1989 had a rationale and was justified in terms of the UGC regulation itself. This Court in that regard in the aforementioned judgment dated 23.11.1995 in CWJC No. 1088 of 1995 had held as follows:- “I find and held that higher U.G.C. scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5700 and Rs. 4500-7300 (in case of Reader and Professor respectively) will be admissible to all those Readers and Professors, who got promotion and whose promotions were due under time bound promotion scheme before 1.3.89 and lower pay scale of Rs. 3000- 5000 and 4500-5700 will apply to such Readers and Professors, who got promotion or whose promotions became due under time bound promotion scheme on or after 1.3.1989.” That being so, when there is no denial to these facts despite service of 4 counter affidavit on the counsel for the petitioners and the issue also seems to have been settled by this Court, there would be no scope for this Court to take any different view. Accordingly, this application, being wholly misconceived, is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)