SURENDRA SINGH Vs. BIRSA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

(2.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the office order as contained in Memo No. 2392 dtd. 4/6/2009; whereby in pursuance to the audit observation dtd. 27/1/2009 regarding grant of higher pay scale i.e. 5000-8000, has been reduced to 4000-6000 (Annexure-14). The petitioner has also assailed the order dtd. 26/11/2010; whereby the pay of the petitioner has been fixed at Rs.4500.00 in the revised pay scale.

(3.) Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this court towards Annexure-13, which is the audit observation with respect to four persons, namely Ramesh Lal Gupta, Mr. Dinanath Pandey, Clement Sanjay Toppo and Computer Sahayak. The said audit objection/ observation was on the ground that in none of the resolutions there is reference of pay scales of Laboratory Technician, however, there is only reference of Lab Assistant, who are in the pay scale of 4000-6000 and 3200-4900 and due to all these reasons the auditor asked for clarification from the office of the Accountant General, Bihar.He further submits that Annexure-13 was an observation of the auditor and thereafter without any show cause; just on the basis of auditor's report, the pay scale of the petitioner was reduced to 4000 6000 in spite of the fact that the name of this petitioner was not found in the auditor's report. He further submits that pursuant to the office order dtd. 4/6/2009 pay of the petitioner has been fixed in the lower scale. He further draws attention to different office orders whereby his pay was revised and further submits that without any show cause and only on the basis of auditor's report, the action of the respondent University in reducing the pay scale is non est in the eye of law and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside.