IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14476 of 2001 1. Bijay Kumar, Son of Late Prof. Baidya Nath, resident of Jamal Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District – Patna, at present posted as Demonstrator in Physics Department, B.N. College, Patna under Patna University, Patna. 2. Bhagwanjee, Son of late Mahabir Prasad, resident of Shiv Durgalaya, Mohalla – Mahendru, P.S. – Sultanganj, District – Patna, at present posted as Demonstrator in Mechanical Engineering Department, Bihar College of Engineering, Patna University, Patna. 3. Bundey Lal Tanti, Son of late Ram Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Sakri Gali, P.S. – Alamganj, District – Patna, at present posted as Demonstrator in Civil Engineering Department, Bihar College of Engineering, Patna University, Patna. …. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Patna University, Patna through its Registrar. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Patna University, Patna. 4. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna. …. Respondents. ----------- 05/ 07.07.2009 Heard. The petitioners were Demonstrators in the Patna University before the revision of pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996. Their pay scale was Rs. 2200 – 4000. As per the revision affected with effect from 01.01.1996 the scale of Rs. 2200 – 4000 was revised by the scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000. However, in the letter of the UGC annexed as Annexure-7 it was provided that the Demonstrators who will reach or would have reached the stage of Rs.8300/- in the revised scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000 or those who completed 16 years of service as Demonstrators, whichever - 2 - is later, could be granted personal pay of Rs.8000 – 13500. The case of the petitioners is that they have all completed more than 16 years of service as Demonstrators. Hence, as per the stipulation in the said letter of UGC, they are entitled to pay personal pay of Rs.8000 – 13500. Having not being done so, petitioners moved this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had also filed representations before the authorities of the University as well as before the Secretary, Higher Education for the purpose, which was pending at the time of filing of the writ application. He also submits that he has not been in contact with the petitioners to seek instructions as to whether any final orders have been passed on those representations or not. In the circumstances, he submits that the writ application may be disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Higher Education, to consider the grievances of the petitioners and, if no final decision has been taken in the matter on the representations of the petitioners so far, to take a decision expeditiously. He also submits that for convenience of the authorities, the petitioners may also be given liberty to file fresh - 3 - representations in case it is required by the respondents. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Secretary, Higher Education to consider the matter of the petitioners in the light of the terms and conditions in circulars of the University Grant Commission governing the grant of revised pay scale to the teachers of the University with effect from 1.1.1996. If he requires, he may ask the petitioners to file detailed representation afresh with supporting documents and appear before him for explaining their case. Thereafter he will pass a reasoned order in the matter preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case he find that the claims of the petitioners are acceptable he will issue necessary instruction to the University in the matter, otherwise he will assign reasons for denying the claims of the petitioners and communicate the same to them. DKS/ (J. N. Singh, J.)