IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15201 of 2001 MD. SHOMAIL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 02/07/2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him the pay scale of Rs.296-460 with effect from 1.7.1977 to 31.12.1995. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the scale of pay of Malaria Inspector, which post the petitioner was holding prior to passing of order (Annexure-2), had pay scale of Rs.296-460. However, upon redesignation of the post of Malaria Inspector as Surveillance Inspector by Annexure-2, petitioner was put in lower pay scale of Rs.220-315. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this amounted to reduction of the scale of the petitioner which was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submits that respondents be directed to put the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.296-460 from 1.7.1977 upto 31.12.1995 after which scales of Malaria Inspector and Surveillance Inspector were merged. In support of his contention, - 2 - learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to few orders of this Court, which are annexed as Annexure-3 and Annexure-5 series. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Annexure-1 itself shows that initial appointment of the petitioner in 1969 was in the scale of Rs.105-155. He submits that replacement scale of the said scale of Rs.105-155 was Rs.220-315. He further submits that the scale of Surveillance Inspector was also Rs.220-315. Therefore, by Annexure-2 only designation of the petitioner and other Malaria Inspectors were changed to Surveillance Inspector, but the scale did not get affected by that. He further submits that in 1977, 248 new posts of Malaria Inspectors were created with higher qualification in the pay scale of Rs.296- 460. Since the post carried higher qualifications which petitioner did not possess, he was not entitled to that scale. He further submits that the said 248 posts of Malaria Inspector were advertised and it was open to the petitioner to apply for his appointment in the higher scale which the petitioner did not do. He further submits that all the orders passed by - 3 - this Court as referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner were considered by a subsequent Bench of this Court in a similar case and similar claim of the writ petitioners of that case was negatived by order dated 10.1.1996, as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. He further submits that there is enormous delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court and therefore, on account of delay and laches also, this writ application is fit to be dismissed. This Court requested learned counsel for the petitioner to show that the scale in which petitioner was appointed in 1969 i.e. Rs.105-155 was replaced by the scale of Rs.296-460 as there was nothing in the writ application to show as to what scale petitioner was enjoying immediately prior to passing of Annexure-2, which he was unable to do. On the other hand, order of this Court (Annexure-B) shows that Malaria Inspectors prior to redesignation of the post as Surveillance Inspector by Annexure-2 were in the scale of Rs.220-315. It is not disputed that the scale of Surveillance Inspector on the date of passing of Annexure-2 - 4 - was also Rs.220-315. Thus, it is apparent that by redesignation of the post as Surveillance Inspector by Annexure-2, pay scale of the petitioner did not get adversely affected. It is also not disputed that when 248 posts of Malaria Inspectors with higher scale and higher qualifications were advertised in 1977, petitioner did not apply. In the circumstances, petitioner cannot claim any right to be placed in the pay scale of Malaria Inspector of the newly created post advertised in 1977, as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. In the result, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish a right to get the pay scale of Rs.296-460 from 1.7.1977 and therefore, this writ application is devoid of merit and the same is therefore dismissed. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)