IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3617 of 2006 RAJU RANJAN PRASAD SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. V. Nath, Ashok Kumar, Satish Kumar and Radha Mohan Pandey. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary. ------- 06. 15.09.2008 Petitioner is a Head Constable and is aggrieved by the order dated 1st January, 2004 which is Divisional Order No.10/04, contained in annexure-6 to the writ application. By virtue of this order his earlier pay fixed at the rate of Rs.4135/- per month with effect from 1.7.2000 vide D.O. No. 149/2002, contained in annexure-2, has been unilaterally reduced from the said date to Rs.4050/-. Petitioner’s contention is that the decision taken in terms of annexure-2 was after due consideration of the claim of the petitioner. An order was issued at the level of the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, East Central Railway Danapur as it then existed. Payment in accordance with the said fixation came to accrue in his favour. But all of a sudden after merely two years, this unilateral decision, reducing the pay-scale earlier granted to the petitioner, has been taken. When the matter was heard earlier, respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit. Since the averments and statements made therein were not satisfactory and could not explaine the sudden turn around of the respondents, the Court directed that the respondents will produce a chart of the pay-scale which the petitioner - 2 - is entitled to especially after 2002 onwards and the anomaly which they wanted to remove. But despite several indulgence in this regard an evasive kind of affidavit has come to be filed and a pay scale with regard to the year 1986 has been brought on record which does not explain the position at all. The petitioner in his reply to the counter affidavit has brought on record the payment which is being paid to the similarly situated Head Constable in the RPF namely, one Birendra Kumar Singh whose pay was also fixed on 1.2.2000 at Rs.4135/-. He categorically states that they tried to mix up the case of the petitioner with one Ram Chandra Paswan who had joined RPF from organization known as RPSF. Since his recruitment is to the post from a different organization, therefore his case cannot be applied in fixing the pay-scale of the present petitioner. According to him , even for the sake of argument if case of Ram Chandra Paswan is the basis the difference in payment of the pay-scale would be only Rs.15. Be that as it may, since the respondents have not been able to satisfactorily explain the reason behind the decision contained in annexure-2 and there is nothing to show that the petitioner was given due opportunity in undoing the benefit which has already been granted earlier in the year 2002, the present decision of the respondents requires interference and annexure-6 dated 1.1.2004 stands quashed with a direction upon the respondents that the petitioner would be paid pay-scale in accordance with annexure-2. If - 3 - any deduction or payment has accrued, respondents shall make payment to the petitioner preferably within three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)