IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7477 of 2010 1. Rabindra Prasad S/O Late Basudeo Prasad R/O Mohalla- Sultanganj, P.S.- Sultanganj, P.O.- Mahendru, Distt.- Patna (Presently Posted As Section Officer In Minor Irrigation Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna 5. The Under Secretary Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna 6. The Principal Secretary, Finance Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 7. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna ----------- 4. 27.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2010 rejecting his prayer for grant of pay protection consequent to the increments granted to his juniors making them eligible for higher pay scale than him. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 which answers nothing except stating that they have acted on the direction of the Finance Department. The impugned order likewise is non speaking in nature not disclosing why the petitioner was not entitled to pay protection over his juniors. Counsel for the State finds it difficult to answer the query of the Court from the counter affidavit why 2 they have not dealt with the specific assertions of the petitioner in Paragraphs-5, 6 and 12 of the writ application with regard to the allegations granting higher increments and consequent pay scale to his juniors violating Article 14 of the Constitution. There can be no justification for not granting pay protection to a person like the petitioner unless issues of reversion arise and which do not appear to be presently applicable either from the impugned order or the counter affidavit of the respondents. The impugned order dated 26.3.2010 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent no. 3 to pass a reasoned and speaking order in light of the present discussion more particularly in context of the allegations of hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution and dispose it by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to state that if the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim necessary consequential orders shall be issued simultaneously without awaiting a second round. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.) 3