IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.41 of 2006 RAMESHWAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Dharnidhar Mishra For the respondent nos.1 to 6 : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC - XI --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K.Prasad --- Dated, the 1st September, 2008 The appellant is an unsuccessful petitioner. The writ petition filed by him came to be dismissed by the single judge vide order dated 13th July, 2005. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The appellant (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the petitioner’) filed the writ petition praying therein that the order dated 23rd June, 2004 be quashed in so far as it concerns the petitioner and the respondents be directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.5500 - 175– 9000 with effect from 1st January, 1996, and to give him all consequential benefits arising from re-fixation. 3. The respondents contested the writ petition and filed counter affidavit in opposition. Inter alia, it was submitted, that earlier the petitioner filed the writ petition being CWJC. 2 No.5781 of 1998, and the said petition having been dismissed by this court, the claim of the petitioner for his re-fixation in the pay scale of Rs. 5500 – 175 – 9000 was misconceived. 4. The single judge in his order dated 13th July, 2005 held that the basic issue being covered by the decision in earlier writ petition (CWJC. No.5781 of 1998), the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. That upon merger of two posts, namely, LDC and UDC in the year 1980, in the new cadre of clerk, the petitioner became clerk in the year, 1980 is not in dispute. That the promotion from the post of clerk is to the post of head clerk is not in dispute. The pay scale of head clerk Rs. 5000 – 8000 is an admitted position. It is also admitted that the petitioner retired as head clerk. 6. The counsel for the petitioner canvassed before us is that since junior persons to him have been given the pay scale of Rs.5500 – 175 – 9000 (Vide Annexure – 10), the petitioner is also entitled to that pay scale and, consequently, his re-fixation needs to be done with effect from 1st January, 1996. 7. We are afraid, the argument overlooks and ignores the fact that the persons, whose reference has been made by the counsel, were promoted to the post of Office Superintendent and, accordingly, they were given the pay scale of Rs.5500 – 175 – 9000. That the petitioner has never been promoted to the post of 3 Office Superintendent is not in dispute. Once it is accepted that the petitioner has not been promoted to the post of Office Superintendent, surely, he is not entitled to pay scale of Office Superintendent i.e., Rs.5500 – 175 – 9000. 8. In what has been argued by the counsel for the appellant, the view of the single judge that the basic issue is covered by the order dated 5th October, 1999, given in Writ Petition No. 5781 of 1998, cannot be faulted. 9. We fail to understand on what basis the petitioner seeks to claim the pay scale of Rs.5500 – 175 – 9000 with effect from 1st January, 1996, as, admittedly, he was never promoted to the post of Office Superintendent and rather retired as head clerk, which has the pay scale of Rs. 5000 – 8000. 9. Dismissal of the writ petition by the single judge, thus, cannot be faulted. 10. Letters patent appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. R.M. Lodha, CJ. C. K. Prasad, J. Neyaz/