IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.65 of 2001 PATNA UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ors Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr Kamal Nayan Choubey, Sr. Advocater Mr Ambuj Nayan Choubey, Advocate Mr Siddharth Harsh, Advocate For the State : Mr Anjani Kumar Sharan, SC 20 For the University : Mr Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate -------- 17. 24.03.2009 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Additional Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna is present in person in pursuance of the earlier order of this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed today affirmed by the Deputy Secretary in the Department of Higher Education. The State Government issued a resolution on 12.10.2004 that any recommendation of the statutory pay fixation committee of the University shall require the approval of the State Government. The statutory pay fixation committee made its recommendation as noticed in the earlier order of this Court dated 31.1.2008. When the State Government sat over the matter and no approval was forthcoming in terms of the resolution dated 12.10.2004 the writ petition assumed relevance. Counsels for the petitioners and the University unequivocally stated that they accept the recommendation of the statutory pay fixation committee. The writ petition nonetheless remained pending when the authorities in the Department of Higher Education did not accord approval much less assist the Court in adjudication and disposal of the writ application. 2 It is indeed unfortunate that it required the personal appearance of the officer concerned to remind them that it is duty of the State to assist the Court in dispensation of justice. It is almost as if the respondents have treated the present as a case of adverserial litigation, a phenomena common to private litigation. Presumably, since the officials in the Department of Higher Education had the luxury of the tax payers money funding their presence in the litigation, they did not even consider it necessary to pay heed to the orders of this Court. It is indeed an unfortunate situation that personal appearance of the officers is required in what was otherwise transpired to be a routine administrative matter after the counter affidavit is filed. It is as if they treated the orders of this Court with complete disdain and they complied with it only when the threat of contempt loomed large. The counter affidavit on behalf of the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education at paragraph 4 states as follows:- “4. That it is further stated and submitted with regard to the aforesaid direction of the Hon‟ble Court it is humbly submitted that the power of pay fixation to the employees of the Universities lies with the pay fixation committee and department is not concerned in this matter. The department does not accord approval or pass any order with regard to the recommendation made by the pay fixation committee, which is the competent authority to fix the pay of the employees of the University in accordance with the provisions of law statutes and Act.” 3 Reading the pleadings therein and its understanding by a common ordinary prudent person, in simple English language, conveys in clear terms that the recommendations of the statutory pay fixation committee is the jurisdiction of the committee and not of the official State respondents. The question of their according approval to the same does not arise. Though they place reliance on an order dated 19.4.2006 at Annexure „A‟ to support the same, learned counsel for the state finds it difficult to explain that if that be the position and no approval was required why was it not communicated to the University and it required intervention of the High court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the constitution to propel the official respondents to discharge what was otherwise a routine administrative matter to be done within the portals of the Secretariat itself. The statement in Para 4 is conclusive and clinches the issue. In view of the statements made in Para 4 of the counter affidavit the recommendation of the statutory pay fixation committee is now required to be implemented in consonance with law. The writ application stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 4