IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10228 of 2002 PANKAJ LOCHAN PANDEY son of Late Haribansh Pandey Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative reforms, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Sheohar. 5. The Chief Engineer, R.E.O.-2, Department of Rural Development, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, R.E.O., Works Circle, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Sheohar. ----------- 3. 20.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17.6.2002 modifying the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs. 4000-100- 6000/- to Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was recommended for compassionate appointment in the year 1999. It were the Respondents who delayed action on this recommendation when the petitioner was finally appointed on 17.3.2001 on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk. Referring to Annexure-5 dated 20.12.2000, learned counsel submitted that undoubtedly the earlier unified cadre of lower division clerk and upper division clerk was demerged and in accordance therewith the petitioner may have been entitled to the scale of lower division clerk. But if the petitioner had been given appointment on compassionate ground in 1999 itself, when the cadre was unified the petitioner would have had the benefit of the pay scale of upper division clerk in terms of the demerger order dated 20.12.2000 that 2 those appointed prior to demerger shall continue to receive the scale of the upper division clerk. It was for this reason, aware of their own lapses that the Respondents notwithstanding the order dated 20.12.2000 deemed him to be an appointee at the time of the unified cadre and gave him the pay scale of upper division clerk. Learned counsel for the State alleged that the petitioner was an appointee of March, 2001 after demerger of the cadre of upper division clerk and lower division clerk. He was erroneously given the higher pay scale of an upper division clerk and, therefore, there was no error in refixation of his scale. No recovery has been ordered. The very recommendation for appointment does not amount to an appointment. The recommendation may fructify or may not fructify. The appointment shall take effect from the date of joining or the date on which the letter of appointment is issued. There could be no appointment with retrospective effect in pursuance of the letter of appointment excluding cases where the Court held bad denial of appointment in law. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner admits his appointment on a date after demerger of cadres. The argument that he has been deemed to be an appointee prior to demerger by the Respondents does not appeal to this Court. Quite justifiably the Respondents have discovered their own mistake. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. He now seeks further compassion for protection of his pay scale when this Court has 3 arrived at the conclusion that the action of the Respondents is not completely de hores law. The controversy of the pay scale of the petitioner stands closed with the present order both with regard to the petitioner and the Respondents. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere. The application is dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)