IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10094 of 2004 BIHAR STATE DIST.PLANNING EMPLOYEES FEDERATION BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS OFFICE PRAMUKH VIVEKANAND JHA----------- PETITIONER. . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Shardanand Jha, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, A.G. with Mr. Ajit Kumar, Assistant Counsel to Advocate General 5 03.02.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Advocate General appearing for the State. This writ application has been filed in representative capacity by Bihar State District Planning Employees Federation, Bihar, Patna through its Office In-charge for a direction to the respondent- State to grant pay scale of Rs. 6500- 10,500/- as applicable to the equivalent post in Central Government and all other monetary benefits to the Members of the petitioner’s Federation with effect from 1.4.1997. The alternative prayer is to grant minimum pay scale of Rs. 5500- 9000/- which has been allowed to other employees of different Departments, who were also appointed pursuant to combined competitive examination. Petitioner’s grievance is that in his case arbitrarily the State Government is not implementing the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee report, where it has been clearly stated that all 2 persons appointed against different graduate level supervisory post must be allowed same pay scale. The petitioner had annexed copy of the judgment passed in CWJC No. 8419 of 1992 ( Nagendra Sahani and ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), where similar question relating to pay scale was considered and it was held that all those employees of the State, who were appointed on different dates through the same combined competitive examination and were allotted different Departments not on the basis of merit-cum- choice but in a random manner cannot be discriminated in the matters of pay scale and they should be allowed same pay scale as per the recommendation of the Fitment Appellant Committee constituted by the State Government. The judgment passed in Nagendra Sahani’s case (supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The learned Advocate General in order to cut-short the matter has placed before me a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in LPA No. 234 of 2007 and analogous LPA, wherein also similar issue was considered. In recent judgment, LPA Bench has also decided that so far the pay scale 3 is concerned, the employees working in 16 services are entitled to be given same scale but so far Central pay scale is concerned, the matter was left for the decision of the State Government and it has been held that it will be open for the State Government to adopt the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee that pay scale suggested by the committee may be adopted only prospective in future. Petitioner in the present writ application is completely covered by the decision in Nagendra Sahni’s case ( supra) we well as recent Division Bench judgment reported in 2011 (1) BBCJ 62. This application is also being disposed off on same terms and conditions. Petitioners are entitled for similar pay scale as it has been allowed to other 13 posts but so far pay scale of Rs. 6500- 10,500/- which relates to Central Pay scale is concerned, it will be open for the State Government to adopt the recommendation of the Fitment Appellant Committee report. Writ application stands allowed. Akumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)