IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12626 of 1996 Talib Hussain, son of Sri Tajab Ali, Driver, Yuva Karj, Khel Awam Sanskriti Bibhag, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Yuva Karj, Khel Awam Sanskriti Bibhag, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Administration-cum-Deputy Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. --------- Respondents ----------- 6 18.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondent State and its officials. In this writ application the following prayer of the petitioner:- “1. That this is an application on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ/order/ direction commanding the respondents to give pay protection since 1.8.1986 with the basic pay Rs. 605/- per month as per Annexure-9. This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the authority to pay deputation allowance. This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quash the order dt. 27th July, 1989 of the Director, Administration-cum-Deputy Secretary (respondent no.3) whereby he appointed the petitioner afresh on a pay-scale of Rs. 425-605 and ordered that the excess payment 2 made to the petitioner shall be recovered from his pay in installments.” seems to be fully covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 16.3.1994 in the case of Nityaneshwar Pandey & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in CWJC No. 9690 of 1992 (Annexure-14), inasmuch as, in the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, the case of Class-IV employees of the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Corporation’), who were absorbed in the service of the State Government on account of the Corporation becoming sick, had been considered as with regard to pay protection and it was held that if the Government and its Finance Department had concurred for protection of pay of its Class-III employees of the Corporation by making a specific provision in its order dated 24.5.1984, the same facility had to be also extended to Class-IV employees of the Corporation so absorbed in the service of the State Government. There is no difficulty in accepting 3 this part of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner also was given such pay protection by the order of the competent authority dated 30.8.1986 (Annexure-9), which was rescinded by the impugned order dated 27.7.1989 on a plea that the petitioner would not be entitled for pay protection and that his appointment in the Government would be a fresh appointment. As noted above, since this aspect of the matter has been decided by the Division Bench in the case of Nityaneshwar Pandey (supra), this Court would find no difficulty in allowing this writ application by quashing the impugned order dated 27.7.1989 (Annexure- 1) and direct the authority to restore the benefit of pay fixation as was originally given to him in the order of appointment dated 30.8.1986 (Annexure-9). It, however, goes without saying that if the respondents have made any recovery pursuant to the impugned order, they would be under obligation to refund the said amount within a period of six months from the 4 date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Consequently, this application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)