IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5775 of 2007 Haripada Ghosh, Son of late Upendra Chandra Ghosh, C/o Hemant Kumar Roy, G.C. Banerjee Road, Bhikanpur, P.S. Kotwali, Thana, District Bhagalpur. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary cum Commissioner, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, Patna Secretariat, Patna. 2. T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through Registrar, T.M. Bhaglapur University, Bhagalpur. 3. Vice Chancellor, T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. ---------- Respondents With CWJC No.5808 of 2007 Subrata Moulik, Son of late Sudhindra Kuma Moulik, present residence, 7, Old Bank Colony, Adampur, Bhagalpur, P.S. Adampur, District Bhagalpur. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary cum Commissioner, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, Patna Secretariat, Patna. 2. T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through Registrar, T.M. Bhaglapur University, Bhagalpur. 3. Vice Chancellor, T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. ----------Respondents ---------- 2 09.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the University as also counsel for the State in both the cases. The prayer of the petitioner in both the writ applications, being similar, reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner correctly from the date when new pay scale came into force on 01.01.1996 and also to correct 2 the wrong reduction of his pay scale from March 2000 to 8.10.2003 for about 2700/- each month which was corrected by the respondent University on 8-10-2003 resulting in arrears for the unpaid period.” Learned counsel for the petitioners, with reference to the aforementioned prayer, however, would draw attention of this Court towards the facts stated in Annexure-2, a representation dated 10.4.2006 filed by the petitioner of both the cases to the Vice Chancellor of the University as with regard to the anomaly in the pay fixation after the pay revision effected by the State Government in the year 2006. Let it be noted that in the said representation, the grievance of the petitioners is confined to re-fixation of their pay earlier being drawn by them in the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3330/- and its revision to the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- in place of Rs. 6500-10500/- whereas in the prayer portion, whatever has been stated is for re- fixation of their pay from 1.1.1996. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners is at variance from the demand made by them in their representation filed before the 3 Registrar of the University. This Court, would, therefore, make it clear that if the grievance of the petitioners is with regard to pay fixation from 1.1.1996, the writ application having been filed on 2.5.2007, the same will not be maintainable but if the grievance of the petitioners is confined to pay fixation of the year 2006 as appears from reading of Annexure-2, the copy of the representation filed by the petitioners on 10.4.2006, in that case the State Government and the University will be under obligation to consider the said grievance of the petitioners confined to the alleged anomaly in pay fixation of the petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- in place of Rs. 6500-10500/-. As there is no counter affidavit by either the State Government or the University, this Court would remit the matter back to the University, which in the event would find that the petitioners are assailing the Government decision with regard to the grant of pay-scale, it would forward the 4 claim of the petitioners to the Director, Higher Education for taking appropriate decision. Such exercise, however, by either of the respondents with regard to taking a final decision confined to the petitioners being placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500- 10500/- in place of Rs. 5000-8000/-, will be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the petitioners will be entitled for any arrear only from the date of filing of the writ application i.e. 2.5.2007. Let it be made clear that this Court, however, has not decided the merit of the claim of the petitioners and has only remitted the matter back to the authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, both of these writ applicants are disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)