IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1167 of 2007 ====================================================== Shyam Narayan Pandit, s/o- Late Basudeo Pandit, r/o- mohalla Munachak, Kankarbagh Road, Patna-20 At present posted as Assistant in the Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna. 2. The Accounts Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. None For the Respondent/s : Ms. Binita Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 5 09-11-2011 No body appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mrs. Binita Singh on behalf of Patna Municipal Corporation (for short “ the Corporation”) is present. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondent Corporation to pay him the scale of pay admissible to the post of Assistant. Admittedly, petitioner was initially engaged as Mali on daily wage basis. He was, however, permitted to discharge duties of Routine Clerk. Petitioner earlier approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11776 of 2000 raising Patna High Court CWJC No.1167 of 2007 (5) dt.09-11-2011 2 identical grievance. This Court by order dated 22.11.2000 disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to file representation which was to be considered and disposed of by the authorities of the Corporation by a reasoned order. Accordingly, the petitioner made representation which was considered and the claim was rejected by order dated 25.7.2003 and duly communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1134 dated 31.7.2003 (Annexure-A). Relevant facts in this regard have been stated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit. It also appears from perusal of the counter affidavit that the minimum of the basic pay of the post of Routine Clerk for the period the petitioner actually discharged the duty has been paid. The said order (Annexure-A) is not under challenge. This Court on consideration of pleadings on record and after hearing learned counsel for the respondent Corporation finds no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)