STATE OF BIHAR Vs. PREMLATA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 12.05.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3554 of 1998 (R) whereby the learned single Judge disposed of the writ application holding that the appellant -State of Bihar had no right to reduce the pay scale which was given to the writ petitioner -respondent in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -1800.

(3.) FROM perusal of the record of the CWJC No. 2354 of 1997 it appears that respondent (writ petitioner) has not claimed that the pay scale of the Bill Clerk is 1200 -1800 rather the case of the petitioner was that there are other posts on scale of Rs. 1200 -1800 and the eligible criteria for appointment in the said posts are the same as that of a Bill Clerk and further that the petitioner was having requisite qualification for appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -1800, therefore, the impugned letter reducing/correcting the pay scale of the petitioner was not justified. On the other hand, the respondents, inter alia, have annexed the Government circular of the year 1991 and annual sanction order duly approved by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, along with counter -affidavit which clearly shows that the scale of pay of a Bill Clerk is in the scale of Rs. 975 -1540. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned single Judge has not correctly appreciated the case of the appellant made in the counter -affidavit and the documents annexed therewith. As noticed above, the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the pay scale of a Bill Clerk is Rs. 975 -1540 rather her case is that the pay scale of corresponding clerk etc. having similar nature of work, is Rs. 1200 -1800 and, therefore, the petitioner was rightly given the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -1800. In absence of any specific claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition, we are, therefore, of the view that the judgment passed by the learned single Judge Is not in accordance with law.