IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.588 of 2006 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna 6. Fitment Committee through its Member Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna ….Respondents -Appellants Versus 1. SARMAD ALI, son of Fasahat Karim, resident of Nafis Colony, PS Sultanganj, Distt. Patna 2. Barun Santra, son of Sri Bhawatosh Santra, resident of Staff Quarter no.8, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Police Station Pirbahore, District Patna..Petitioners-Respondents ----------- 08- 30.4.2010 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Addl. Advocate General II for the appellants, and Mr. Siya Ram Shahi for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.8.2004, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 8240 of 1990, whereby the writ petition has been disposed of with the following direction :- “Agreeing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I hold that the order contained in Annexure B is patently illegal. It deserves to be and is accordingly quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the entire matter taking into consideration the recommendations made by the Fitment Committee. If they are of the opinion that the recommendations of the Fitment Committee are to be accepted then they will do so. If they are of the opinion that the petitioners would not be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, then they will have to give reason for the same. Even if the respondents hold that the petitioners are not entitled to pay scale of Rs.5000- 8000, then too the respondents would be obliged to provide to the petitioners revised pay scale of 2 Rs.1400-2300 and not any thing below it.” 2. It is evident that the learned single Judge has remitted the matter to the State Government to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order. We do not see any cause of action for the present appeal. We feel very unhappy with this frivolous appeal which has resulted in clearly avoidable delay in disposal of the matter remitted to the Government, and also harassment to the respondents. 3. This appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5000/- each payable to the respondents along with their salaries. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl