IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8710 of 1997 =================================================== 1. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Late Dharmnath Singh, resident of Village Baduan, P.O. Ram Nagar, P.S. Raghunathpur, Dist. Siwan at present posted as Research Officer (Gazetteer), Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Main Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 2. Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, Resident of Village Chandrakho, P.O. Kubri, P.S. Raj Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih at present posted as Research Officer (Gazetteer), Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 3. Sri Sheo Prakash Singh, son of Sri Baidyanath Singh, at present posted as Research Officer (Gazetteer), Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Finance Commissioner, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents =================================================== 8 12-07-2011 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioners for parity of their pay-scale of the post of Research Officer is based on a wholly misconceived notion that in all the department of the State Government, the Research Officer must have the same pay-scale. The petitioners were admittedly appointed on the post of Research Officer in Revenue and Land Reforms Department for whom there was always a separate pay-scale and, therefore, they could not have claimed the pay-scale of Research Officer of Water Resources Department or Planning Department where also the post of Research Officer is in existence. It is this aspect of the matter which was considered by the Anomaly Removal Committee of the State Government on a representation made by the petitioner and the Committee came to a conclusion that the petitioners’ demand for equal pay of Research Officer of other department of the State Government was not tenable. The job of pay fixation and pay revision has to be left to the expert body and if the Pay Revision Committee and Pay Removal Committee, after going into the details of the case of the petitioners, have found a rationale to allow them to continue in the pay-scale of Research Officer prescribed for Land Reforms and Revenue Department, the same cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)