IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15439 of 2008 --- NAWAL KISHORE GUPTA son of late Baiju Lal Gupta, resident of Mohalla-Sahebganj, P.O. Champanagar, P.S. Tatarpur (Kotwali), Town and District-Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE T.M.BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY , Bhagalpur through its Registrar. 2. The Vice Chancellor,The T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 3. The Registrar, The T.M.Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 4. The Finance Officer, The T.M. University, Bhagalpur. 5. The Head of the Department,P.G.Department of Physics,T.M.Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 6. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance ,Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,Patna. 7. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,Govt. of Bihar, New Secretaryat,Patna. 8. The Director,Department of Higher Education,Gvot. of Bihar,New Secretariat,Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.N.Jha,Sr.Adv. For the University: Mr.AnilSingh. Mr.Purushottam Kr.Jha. 2 12.11.2008 Petitioner superannuated as a Mechanic in the post graduate , Department of Physics of Tilka Manjhi University on 315.2004. He has been served with the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 13, by which he has been informed that his revised pay scale was wrongly fixed and accordingly he has been paid a total amount of Rs. 2,30,781/- in excess of his entitlement. He was informed by the said impugned communication that the same was sought to be recovered at the rate of Rs. 2900/- per month in the next 79 months and the last monthly instalment being Rs. 1681/- .The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the said action on the ground that such a recovery could not be ordered, petitioner has to be issued a show cause. The second submission of Mr. Jha for the petitioner is that once Syndicate or Senate has sanctioned the revised pay scale to the - 2 - petitioner, the University was incompetent to revise the same. Heard counsel for the parties and with their conset this writ petition is being disposed of. Counsel for the University submits that the State Government in order to check the account of University, appointed Auditor. It is in course of such audit examination this serious disparity came to light. Petitioner’s pay scale was not sanctioned by the Government. As per the rules of pay scale, petitioner was not entitled to pay scale given by the Syndicate or Senate. That being so, what was being done by the University was mere correction of a mistake already made. Recovery was ordered at low equitable instalments spreading over almost seven years though payments were made in lump sum between 2006-2008. Be that as it may, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 13 itself requires the petitioner to make a representation to the University, which the petitioner says, he has already made and is contained in Annexure 15 to the writ petition. It is now for the University to consider whether the fixation as done by the Syndicate/Senate is in consonance with the Government’s notification in that regard. Any decision taken by the University would be duly communicated to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within two months from today. For the two months, no deduction shall be made. Deduction, if any, to be made would abide whatever the University takes decision on the representation, as filed by the petitioner. Needless to say that if there are certain dues still payable to the petitioner by the University, the University would also take proper steps - 3 - to pay and/or adjust the same. This disposes of the writ petition. Singh (Navaniti Pd.Singh)