IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.6459 OF 2003 ASHWANI KUMAR, SON OF LATE DR. KAPILDEO PRASAD, AT PRESENT POSTED AS CLERK IN RAJKIYA AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, PATNA ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HEALTH, EDUCATION, FAMILY WELFARE AND DESHI CHIKITSA DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY –CUM- DIRECTOR, HEALTH EDUCATION, FAMILY WELFARE AND DESHI CHIKITSA DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL, RAJKIYE AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE –CUM- THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEVEL COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, PATNA ………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ******** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. RAMAKANT SHARMA, SR. ADV. MR. LAKSHMIKANT SHARMA, ADV. FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. RAKESH SINGH, AC TO GA 1 ********* 8 05/01/2011 The only question in this writ application is whether the petitioner who was appointed on 05.07.1999 would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- which is the pay scale of a person appointed on the post of Upper Division Clerk. The stand of the State is that at the time of appointment of the petitioner and others like him, consent was not taken from the concerned authorities. The consent for the appointments of Clerks was given after 2000 and as such the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. The relevant document for this purpose is the letter of the State Government dated 20th December, 2 2000. Paragraph 3 of the said letter indicates the pay scale after demerger is Rs. 3050-4590/- for Lower Division Clerk and Rs. 4000-6000/- for Upper Division Clerk. Paragraph 4 of the letter indicates that the person working on the post of Upper Division Clerk would be granted the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. The controversy arose by virtue of the subsequent notification issued by the Personal & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna dated 20th June, 2001, which deals with the cases of compassionate appointments and purportedly, accordingly to the State, covers the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner too was appointed on compassionate ground. The notification contained in Annexure-C dated 30th July, 2001 indicates that those persons who are appointed on compassionate grounds after the issuance of this notification would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner was appointed on 05.07.1999 i.e. before the issuance of the notification dated 30th July, 2001. The fact that the approval for the appointment of the petitioner was given in the year 2000, cannot deprive the petitioner from pay scale as fixed by the notification dated 20.12.2000. It is not the fault of the petitioner that at the time of his appointment, prior approval was not taken from the 3 Finance Department or any other concerned Department. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was appointed on the date when the appointment letter was issued by the competent authority. The appointment of the petitioner is not under challenge and, therefore, the stand of the State that he would be covered by the notification dated 30.07.2001 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the fixation of pay of the petitioner vide Annexures-1 and 2 are quashed and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to re-fix the pay scale of the petitioner in accordance with the notification dated 20.12.2000 at Rs. 4000-6000/- The petitioner would be at liberty to produce a copy of this order before respondent no. 2, who will pass appropriate orders and pay all the arrears due to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )