BRIJ BIHARI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.1986 passed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioners have moved this Court in the present writ application. According to the petitioners, they are working since 1976 as Science teachers in different Middle Schools' in the Giridih District. The scale of pay of graduate untrained teachers was fixed some times on 4.6.1973 at Rs. 296/- and that of Intermediate untrained teachers at Rs. 230/- with effect from 1.1.1971. The petitioners were working on the fixed scale of pay of Rs. 296/- till March, 1981. In view of the report of 4th Pay Revision Committee, the Finance Department accepted the said report and new pay scale was prescribed accordingly. After resolution of the Finance Department dated 30.12.1981, the decision was communicated to all the offices of the Education Department. On the basis of that, the District Superintendent of Education fixed the revised pay scale of petitioners and got it verified by the Fixation Section of Finance Department. According to petitioners, subsequently by an order dated 4.6.1986 the respondent No. 2 reduced the pay scale of the petitioners and further directed the petitioners for recovery of the amount which was paid to them in excess.

(2.) Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that this order of the respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained in-law inasmuch as the same was passed without following the principle of natural justice. According to him, before passing of the said order, neither any notice was issued nor the petitioners were given any opportunity of being heard. In support of his contention, he has relied on an unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sheo Shankar Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar & ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 1724 of 1986(R), disposed of on 28.3.91).

(3.) Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned GP 2, on the other hand, has drawn my attention to the order passed on 22.8.1986 and submitted that on the same facts and circumstances, other two writ applications, namely CWJC Nos. 1010 and 1011 of 1982 (R) have been dismissed by this Court and as such the present writ application should also be dismissed. Secondly, it is contended by Mr. Agrawal that the impugned order (Annexure 6) is not an order by which the pay scale of the petitioners has been reduced. On the other hand, the actual pay scale has been fixed as far as the petitioners and other like teachers are concerned. His contention is that if by misinterpreting any provision of law, an order was passed by which petitioners received some benefits, but after realising the mistake if the Government wants to recover the amount paid in excess, that cannot attract the penal consequences for which principle of natural justice should be followed. According to him, Annexure 6 shows that proposal for increase in the pay scale of untrained teachers was not approved by the Department and as such, a clarification to this regard was issued and under these circumstances, it cannot be said that it is a case of reduction in pay scale. Distinguishing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, referred above, Mr. Agrawal submits that as because no counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents, on the basis of statements made in the writ-petition itself, this Court presumed that it was a case of reduction in pay scale without any notice and in that view of the matter, this Court set aside the order treating the impugned order of that case as an order of reduction.