IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.898 of 2009 ====================================================== Rajiv Ranjan S/o Late Ram Naresh Thakur, resident of Mohalla – Jai Mahaveer Colony, Road No. 5, Sandalpur, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Bahadurpur, District – Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Director, Higher Education Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna. 4. The Patna University, through the Vice Chancellor, Patna. 5. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna. 6. The Finance Officer, Patna University, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc6) Mr. Shivendra Kishore Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 07/ 15-10-2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner, the counsel appearing for Patna University and the State. Writ application had initially been filed by Ram Naresh Thakur but he died during the pendency of the writ application, as such his son Rajiv Ranjan filed Interlocutory application for substituting his name in place of original writ petitioner. Interlocutory application was allowed and Rajiv Ranjan’s name has been substituted in place of original writ petitioner for prosecuting this application. Patna High Court CWJC No.898 of 2009 (7) dt.15-10-2011 2 / 9 2 Prayer of the petitioner was for a direction to the respondent-authorities to fix the salary of Planning Officer of Patna University in higher pay scale than those which has been fixed for the post of Section Officer with effect from 01.01.1996 vide Memo No. 998 dated 7.6.2007, as the cadre of Planning Officer is higher than the Section Officer of the University and only most eligible Section Officer is promoted and placed as Planning Officer after promotion. Further prayer of the petitioner was that a direction to the respondents for making payment of his arrears of salary as well as retiral dues after fixation of his salary as Planning Officer with effect from 1.1.1996. He has also prayed for a direction to make payment of all his legal dues after re- fixation of his salary and pension as well pensionary benefits. Petitioner was appointed as Super Division Assistant in Patna University in the year, 1961. He was promoted as Section Officer vide Memo No. 8C/6082 dated 7.11.1983. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Planning Officer vide order contained in Memo No. 4079 dated 5.12.1991 issued under the signature of Deputy Registrar, Patna University on recommendation of the Selection Committee. The post of Planning Officer carried pay scale of Rs.2000-3800/- which is more than the pay scale of Section Officer. This is also indicative of this fact that the post of Patna High Court CWJC No.898 of 2009 (7) dt.15-10-2011 3 / 9 3 Planning Officer is higher in rank and cadre than that of the Section Officer. The State Govt. vide Memo No. 882 dated 2.6.1982 revised the pay scale of the University Officers, according to which the pay scale of Planning Officer was Rs.940- 1600/- and Section Officer Rs.860-1510. After revision of pay vide order dated 27.6.1992 the salary of Planning Officer was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1899-3330 and that of Section Officer in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. The State of Bihar vide Memo No. 593 dated 27.6.1992 approved pay scale of Rs.2000-3800/- for the post of Planning Officer. Petitioner’s case is that the State Govt. and the University always considered and approved a higher pay scale to the Planning Officer of the University than those of Section Officers. However, the 5th Pay Revision Committee erroneously recommended the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- both for Planning Officer and Section Officer. Against this anomaly and recommendation representations were filed by the Planning Officers of the University and the University recommended to the Govt. for fixation of pay of Planning Officer in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- and the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- for Section Officers vide letter No. 980 dated 7.4.2005. The respondent-State vide Memo No. 998 dated 7.6.2007 fixed the pay scale of Patna High Court CWJC No.898 of 2009 (7) dt.15-10-2011 4 / 9 4 Rs.6500-10500 for Section Officers but did not take any action for fixing the pay scale of Planning Officer in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 as recommended by the University and the anomaly in the pay scale of Planning Officer continued. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while recommending the pay scale of Planning Officer vide letter No. 980 dated 7.4.2005, the University categorically stated that the rank and cadre of the Planning Officer of the University is equivalent to that of Assistant Registrar of the University and the post of Assistant Registrar of the University carrying a pay scale ofRs.8000-13500/-, therefore, the Planning Officer of the University is also entitled for the same pay scale. The pay scale of III grade employee was also recommended in which Section Officers and Establishment Officers were recommended the pay scale of 6500-10500/-. Petitioner’s case is that the recommendation of the University regarding pay scale of different employees of the University clearly suggests that the rank and grade of Planning Officer is much higher than the Section Officer. However, the State Govt. while fixing the pay scale of Section Officer in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- did not consider the anomalies regarding pay scale of higher officer like Planning Officer and left his pay Patna High Court CWJC No.898 of 2009 (7) dt.15-10-2011 5 / 9 5 scale untouched. It is much less than the pay scale of Section Officer. Petitioner retired as Planning Officer on 31.3.1996 and the revised pay scale was made effective with effect from 1.1.1996. But, due to non-fixation of pay scale, removing the anomalies the petitioner suffered a financial loss of his pay scale as well as of the retiral dues. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-authorities were duty bound to remove the anomalies of the pay scale and fix a pay scale fairly to the rank and cadre of Planning Officer. Only after removing the anomaly, re- fixation of pay can be made, calculated and arrears of salary dues and other retiral dues can be paid to the petitioner. As indicated in the writ application, despite several representations filed by the petitioner to the respondent-university, State-authorities have not taken any step for removing the anomalies of the pay revision report and for re-calculation of the arrears of salary and retiral dues of the petitioner. The Respondent Patna University in its counter affidavit has not denied that cadre of Planning Officer is higher than the cadre of Section Officer. But the stand of the Patna University as per provision of Section 35 of the Patna University Act, 1976, no new pay scale can be given by the University Patna High Court CWJC No.898 of 2009 (7) dt.15-10-2011 6 / 9 6 without approval of the State Govt. Employees are provided pay scale only after the approval of the State Govt. Since the State Govt. vide Memo No. 1972 dated 12.10.2004 has revised the pay scale of the employees and accordingly, pay scale of Rs.5500- 9000/- was allowed to the Planning Officer, the University cannot fix salary of the petitioner in any other scale. It has also been stated that the University has requested the State Govt. to reconsider the pay scale of other posts and approve the same. It has also been stated that the University detecting the error in fixation of pay scale by the State Govt., had requested for removing anomalies. The State Govt. removed such anomaly so far the pay scale of Section Officer is concerned, by fixing it in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-, but so far Planning Officer’s pay scale is concerned, the State Govt. did not take any cognizance and has approved the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-. In this circumstance, University cannot allow any other pay scale to the petitioner. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State Govt. from which it transpires that State Govt. is not ready to remove such anomaly and to give any direction to the request made by the petitioner as well as the University. The stand taken by the respondent-State is that vide Memo No. 1972 dated Patna High Court CWJC No.898 of 2009 (7) dt.15-10-2011 7 / 9 7 12.10.2004 the State Govt. has revised the pay scale of the employees of the University of Bihar. According to which pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-was allowed to the Planning Officer. The revised pay scale of Planning Officer is not going to be re-revised and the request of the University is not binding upon the State. Considering the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, the State and the statement made in the writ application, I find that prior to 2004 the pay scale of Planning Officer and Section Officer used to be fixed, considering the post of Planning Officer a higher post. There is no controversy that the post of Planning Officer is the promotional post of Section Officer, as such higher pay scale was attached to this post. The Planning Officer’s post being higher in rank and cadre than that of the Section Officer; there was no obvious reason for fixing the pay scale of Planning Officer lower to the pay scale of Section Officer. The University noticing anomaly in the pay scale of Section Officer and Planning Officer had recommended for removing such anomaly. The request of University was adhered to with respect of pay scale of Section Officer and it was re-fixed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- but so far recommendation made in case of Planning Officer, for fixing it in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/-, was not considered by the State. No obvious reason has been Patna High Court CWJC No.898 of 2009 (7) dt.15-10-2011 8 / 9 8 assigned for ignoring the recommendation of the University, in the counter affidavit of the State. Counsel for the petitioner has produced resolution dated 12.10.2004 contained in memo No. 1972, issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Bihar. Clause 17 of this resolution provides that in case of any anomaly in any pay scale the Department will constitute a Committee for removing such anomaly. I find that the State Govt. has taken arbitrary view by deciding not to remove anomaly in the pay scale of Planning Officer of the University, despite the fact that it is a higher post and its pay scale has been fixed in the lower scale than the Section Officer. Accordingly, The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Bihar is directed to constitute a Committee as per Clause 17 of the resolution dated 12.10.2004 contained in Memo No. 1972, for removing the anomaly in the pay scale of the Planning Officers’ post. The Committee must be constituted within three weeks from the date of production/communication of the order. The anomaly in the pay fixation of Planning Officers in the pay scale lower than the pay scale of Section Officer, shall be corrected and removed as per the recommendation made by the Patna University. The pay scale of the Planning Officer shall be Patna High Court CWJC No.898 of 2009 (7) dt.15-10-2011 9 / 9 9 fixed as per the recommendation of the Patna University in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/-. The respondent-authorities of the University on removal of the anomaly will fix the salary of the petitioner in the pay the scale with effect from 1.1.1996 and fix the petitioner’s pension and pensionary benefits. The entire arrears of salary payable to the original writ petitioner must be calculated and paid to the substituted writ petitioner within four weeks from the date of constitution of such Committee. The arrears of pension shall also be re-fixed in the revised pay scale and paid to the substituted writ petitioner. This application is, accordingly, allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J)