IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.132 of 2010 1. NESAR AHMAD S/O LATE SADRUDDIN AHMAD R/O VILL+P.O- CHANAWATH, P.S- NAWANAGAR, DISTT- BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE COLLECTOR, (ZILA PADADHIKARI), BUXAR 8. THE DISTRICT ACCOUNT OFFICER, BHOJPUR, ARA 9. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BUXAR 10. THE TREASURY OFFICER, BUXAR 11. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KESATH, DISTT- BUXAR 12. RANGE (CHHETRA) EDUCATION OFFICER, DUMRAON, DISTT- BUXAR 13. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER,, NAWANAGAR, DISTT- BUXAR with CWJC No.133 of 2010 1. RAM BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE PANCH RATAN SINGH R/O VILL-THATHERI BAZAR (YADAV TOLA), DUMRAON, P.O+P.S- DUMRAON, DISTT- BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATIN, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE COLLECTOR, (ZILA PADADHIKARI), BUXAR 8. THE DISTRICT ACCOUNT OFFICER, BHOJPUR, ARA 9. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTEDENT OF EDUCATION, BUXAR 10. THE TREASURY OFFICER, BUXAR 2 11. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KESATH, DISTT- BUXAR 12. RANGE (CHHETRA) EDUCATION OFFICER, DUMRAON, DISTT- BUXAR 13. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, null NAWANAGAR, DISTT- BUXAR ----------- 2 5.5.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of orders contained in three letters, i.e. letter no. 3785/(2) dated 12.5.2008, letter contained in memo No. 775/Ara dated 17.9.2008 and letter No. 881 dated 24.10.2008. These letters have been issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, the District Account Officer, Bhojpur at Ara and District Superintendent of Education, Buxar, respectively. The effect of the issuance of these three letters, that pay fixation done in favour of the petitioners in the I.Sc. trained scale, in the light of resolution No.6022 dated 18..12.1989 of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, read with Memo no. 299 dated 6.3.1990- of the department of Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, is being reviewed and reduced. 3 Petitioners were appointed in Intermediate science scale, their pay were fixed vide an order dated 2.6.1992 passed by the competent authorities (Annexure-4), in the light of resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989. After a gap of several years, the impugned letters have been issued holding that pay fixation had not been done as per the Finance Department’s resolution. The resolution of the Finance Department was that pay fixation of Intermediate Science trained teachers, appointed in between 1.1.1986 to 28.2.1`989, will be done in the revised pay scale, in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule III of the resolution no. 60222 dated 18.12.1989 of the Finance Department. Petitioners’ case is that their pay fixation was doneas per the resolution of the Finance Department, and there is no scope for the District Account Officer or any other respondent to make any change, despite this fact, impugned orders have been issued. On account of these orders, petitioners salary will be fixed in a reduced scale and amount paid as salary to the petitioners, will recovered. 4 Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that issue, involved in the present writ applications had earlier been decided by this Court in CWJC No. 8333 of 1999 (Shiva Kant Jha Vs. State of Bihar & ors). In this case Clause 8 of the resolution was considered. “In all cases of new appointments made on or after Ist January, 1986 but before issue of these orders or in case of promotion, either substantive or officiating made on or after Ist January, 1986 but before issue of these orders, the appointment/promotion will be deemed to have been made in the Revised scale subject to the provisions made in the subsequent paragraphs of this Resolution and the pay of such teachers shall be fixed in the Revised scale accordingly.” The finding was that the pay fixation done in favour of the petitioner as per Clause 8 of the Resolution and its entry in service book was correct, as such there was no scope for District Accounts Officer to hold that petitioners’ salary on 1.1.1986 would be zero. Against this order, no LPA was preferred by the State and this order become final. 5 Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits since, this issue is already settled, the respondent authorities cannot take any decision against the settled law. Counsel appearing for the State has admitted this fact that no LPA has been preferred against the judgment and orders passed in Shiva Kant Jha’s case. Considering this fact, I find that respondents cannot act in any other manner than the law decided in Shiva Kant Jha’s case. The pay fixation done in favour of the petitioners vide Annexure-2, can not be changed. The impugned Annexur-3 series cannot be implemented, reducing the pay scale of the petitioners. These writ applications stands allowed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar