1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --- Letters Patent Appeal No.1516 OF 1999 --- MD.SOBRATI-----------------------------(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS---------------(Respondents) --- FOR THE APPELLANT: MR.KHURSHID ALAM, FOR THE STATE : MR. A.AMANULLAH, S.C.17, MR.A.K.PRASAD, J.C. TO S.C.17 --- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE K. MANDAL --- Shiva Kirti Singh, J., & Kishore K. Mandal, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2) The appellant preferred the writ petition bearing CWJC. No.262 of 1998 to claim the benefit of a policy decision of the State Government contained in Circular dated 23.2.1987 (Annexure – 4 to the writ petition), whereby posts of Steno- Typist in the Cadre of Secretariat and its attached offices were to be merged with the higher posts of Personal Assistant (PA) in those offices on certain terms and conditions. Such a claim was made by the petitioner/appellant on the premise that he was appointed as a Steno-Typist on 25.6.1979 in the Office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi, which is in the category of Secretariat and its attached offices. 2 He did not annex his appointment letter but has filed a supplementary affidavit at the appellate stage to claim that according to Annexure -6 to that supplementary affidavit on 11.7.1979, that is, after more than two weeks of his appointment he, as a Steno-Typist, Accounts Section, has been shown as Steno in the Office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi. 3) The claim of the writ petitioner/appellant was contested by the State of Bihar by filing a counter affidavit disclosing that the petitioner was appointed as a Steno-Typist in the scale prescribed, in the office of Additional Chief Conservator (Development), Bihar and thereafter he was posted in the office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar as a Steno-Typist against the sanctioned Muffasil Cadre post of Steno-Typist to the Accounts Officer and he was allowed regular increments in the scale meant for the Steno-Typist of Muffasil Cadre from time to time. 4) In the counter affidavit it was also disclosed that on 15.10.1982 the petitioner claimed Secretariat Cadre Scale and Post of Personal Assistant but his claim was dismissed by the then Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, on the ground that no such post was sanctioned in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar and only a post of Steno-Typist for Accounts 3 Officer in Mufassil Scale was available, on which the petitioner was already serving. 5) From the judgment and order under appeal, it transpires that the writ court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has not annexed his initial appointment letter and after noticing the stand of the State in the counter affidavit it has come to a conclusion that the stand of the State appears to be correct and on the basis of materials on record the petitioner does not belong to the Cadre of the Secretariat and its attached offices. 6) On going through the materials on record before the writ court and even after considering the Annexure -6 and Annexure -8 (particularly entry no.91), we find no material to take a different view than what has been taken by the writ court. 7) In the alternative, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that even if it be presumed that the writ petitioner/appellant was not appointed in the Cadre of Steno-Typist for the Secretariat and its attached offices, there are materials to show that when the policy decision of 1987, contained in Circular dated 23.2.1987, came into existence, the petitioner was a Steno-Typist working in an office covered by the expression Secretariat and its attached 4 offices and, therefore, he should have been allowed the benefit of up-gradation to the post of Personal Assistant because the Circular contained in Annexure -4 to the writ petition in its subject as well as in the main paragraph uses the term “dk;Zjr” , that is, working as Steno- Typist in the Secretariat and its attached offices and not the expression belonging to the Cadre of Steno-Typist in the Secretariat and its attached offices. The submission needs to be noticed only for rejection. 8. The subject of the Circular contained in Annexure -4 makes it clear that the policy decision relates to merger of Cadre of Steno- Typists and Personal Assistants (PAs.) for the Secretariat and its attached offices. An outsider can never get the benefit of Cadre and hence the word “dk;Zjr” or working must be interpreted in the context to mean those who are existing in the Cadre or working in the Cadre. Creation or merger of the Cadres is a conscious decision of the State Government and the benefit of such decision cannot affect or benefit any one who does not belong to those Cadres. 9. Thus, on proper consideration of facts and submissions, we find no good reason to take a different view in the matter than what has been taken by the writ court. 5 10. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Patna High Court, Dated, the 6th May, 2008 NAFR/(Neyaz)