IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11276 of 2005 RANJIT KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate For Siwan Central Co-operative Bank : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad Advocate Mr. Binod Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.III ------------ 5 12.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner grievance is that his initial appointment and joining on the post of a Peon based on Annexure – 5 is misplaced because the petitioner has been appointed on Grade-IV Post under the Bank. His assertion is that based on his education qualification and otherwise the post offered to him as well as the pay scale does not match the IVth Grade on which his appointment was made. His appointment letter dated 04.06.1996 has become a bone of contention now in the year 2008 or may be a couple of year’s early when the writ application was filed in the year 2005. It is not in dispute that appointment to the post under the Bank was made under the compassionate category on the death of the father of the petitioner. 2 Respondents have filed a counter affidavit and have brought on record the resolution of Board of Directors dated 29.01.1996 besides other decisions. There is a resolution to appoint the petitioner in the Bank on compassionate appointment on the post of ‘Anusevak’ with a particular pay scale. The appointment letter contained in Annexure – 5 is in conformity with the decision both with regard to the post as well as the pay scale. No doubt the expression ‘Chaturth Vargiya’ has been issued in the appointment letter. The Court can only observe that the expression ‘Chaturth Vargiya’ relates to the IVth Grade which is known in the common parlance and may not be in conformity with the Grade which is offered by the Bank. The Court does not find any material or evidence to find fault with the letter of appointment issued in terms of the resolution dated 29.01.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter has tried to prevail upon this Court that the petitioner’s service has been confirmed on the higher post. He is being shouldering the responsibility of higher post and the work taken by the respondents does not match with the post on which he had been appointed. There is some evidence in this regard available on the writ application, 3 but, keeping in mind, the primary relief for which the petitioner had come, there may not be any occasion to observe anything further, then what has been recorded in this part of the order. In so far as the relief of the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to treat him and pay him Grade-IV scale is concerned based on the compassionate appointment letter, the same is rejected as being devoid of merit. In so far the other relief and claim to which the petitioner has indicated above there may not be any occasion to observe in favour of the petitioner in the present writ application. If the petitioner has a cause of action which is separate, he may approach this Court afresh with fresh pleadings and evidence in this regard in yet another writ application. The present writ application is dismissed accordingly. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)