The State Of Bihar And ORS v. Md. Sultan Ahmad And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1408 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17955 of 2011 ===========================================================

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

.... .... Appellants

Versus

1. Md. Sultan Ahmad, son of Md. Abdul Salim, resident of Mohalla - Miki Annit, Ara (Bhojpur).

2. The Vir Kunwar Singh University, Ara through its Vice Chancellor.

3. Vice Chancellor, Vir Kunwar Singh University, Ara.

4. The Registrar, Vir Kunwar Singh University, Ara.

5. The Principal, S.V. College, Buxar.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG-9 For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sanjany Kr. Mishra, Advocate For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 03-05-2017 Heard learned Additional Advocate General No. 9 representing the State, counsel for the University and the counsel representing the private respondent.

Appeal is against the order dated 16.04.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has passed a very simple and innocuous order, in fact, accepting the stand of the State with regard to their Memo No. 608 dated 10th of April, 2012, which

Patna High Court LPA No.1408 of 2014 dt.03-05-2017 2/2 was brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in the writ application and gave a direction to pay the pay-scale to the Demonstrators fixed as per notification dated 10th of April, 2012. In fact, there is not even a whisper as to what kind of pay-scale is required to be paid or extended to respondent no. 1. The reason for filing the appeal is not appreciated or understood by the Court. The matter is totally in the hands of the State and it is open to the State authorities who have to take a call to go strictly by the notification dated 10th of April, 2012. Nothing by way of interference is otherwise warranted with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2014.

Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04.05.2017 Transmission Date NA