IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5208 of 1996 ---------- Dr. Mithilesh Prasad Shrivastava, son of Late Dr. Krishna Pd. Shrivastava, Village+ P.O. Narhan, District- Samastipur, Presently posted as Medical Officer Incharge Municipal, Homeopathic Charitable Dispensary, Samastipur. -----Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Joint Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Special Officer, Samastipur Municipality, Samastipur. --------Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. Aditya Prakash Sahay & Niraj Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, J.C. to G.A.II. For the Municipality: Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate. ----------- 5. 24.11.2008. This Court had passed an order on 10.11.2008 on the basis of the submissions made by Mr. Durga Nand Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Samastipur Municipality, wherein he has stated that the petitioner has been paid, according to the revised pay- scale and there are no dues left to be paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not present in court on 10.11.2008 and thereafter he made a mention before this Court that on the basis of the submissions that the petitioner had got scale as approved by the State Government, this case has been disposed of. But since the order was not signed, this Court got it listed under the heading’ To be mentioned’ to be heard again. On hearing the parties, it transpires that the petitioner was working as a Homeopathic Doctor in the Samastipur Municipality. - 2 - The petitioner has since retired in the year 1997. The claim of the petitioner is that as per the Gazette Notification issued on 3.2.1981, the staff of the Municipality was to be treated equal in status to those persons working in the State Government. On the basis of the aforesaid Notification, the petitioner claimed that he should be given the same pay-scale as Homeopathic Doctors working in the State Government. The further claim of the petitioner is that, although, the scale has been revised, the petitioner has not got the revised scale as per the recommendation of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Pay Revision Commission. The stand of the Samastipur Municipality is that the pay scale is revised and approved by the State Government and after approval of the State Government, the employees of the Samastipur Municipality received their salary. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the Fitment Committee recommended two scales of pay and the petitioner has accordingly been paid a lower scale, although, he is entitled to be paid the same scale as his counter part in the State Government. It is also admitted that the employees of the Municipality are not being paid the same scale as their counter parts in the State Government. Learned counsel relies on a the order/judgment of this Court passed in C.W. J.C.No.8571 of 1994 dated 30.11.1995 whereby the Court has remanded the matter to the Joint Secretary, Urban Development Department, Bihar, Patna, to consider the extension of - 3 - the benefit of the recommendation of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Pay Revision Committee to the petitioner in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The court clarified that the Joint Secretary should also consider whether the petitioner is a degree holder and whether the benefits of pay revision was applicable to them. In this case two issues arise. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had been treated to be a degree holder by virtue of an order passed by the State Government which is contained in annexure-7 dated 21.11.1992 and as he is entitled to a higher pay. The contention is that the petitioner ought to be treated at par with the government employees who are degree holders be granted the same pay scale as is granted to the State Government employees. In my opinion, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna ought to consider the contention of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order with respect to his claim that he should be paid the same scale as State Government employees, although the petitioner is a Diploma holder. The petitioner may file a representation annexing all the relevant documents within a period of three weeks on receipt/production of the copy of this order. Thereafter, the entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J) - 4 -