IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3399 of 1993 AYDUNANDAN PRASAD, son of Shri Ram Lal Mahto, resident of village Kaichak, P.S. & P.O. Barh, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH the Finance Commissioner and Secretary, Finance Department, Main Secretariat, Patna 2. The Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 9. 25.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(a) That the respondents be directed to provide the petitioner with the replaced scale of Rs. 1350-2000/- with effect from the 1st of April, 1981 and thereby to give subsequent revision of pay scale of Rs. 2400-4150/- with effect from the 1st of January, 1986, as has been recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee and the Fifth Pay Revision Committee/ Fitment Committee with respect to the post of Statistical Specialist of all the other departments, including the Agriculture Department of the State of Bihar. (b) That the respondents be further directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in the aforesaid 2 scale of Rs. 1350-2000/- with effect from the 1st of April, 1981 and thereafter to fix the pay of the petitioner in the revised scale of Rs. 2400-4150/- with effect from the 1st of January, 1986, and thereafter to give the petitioner the arrears of his salary thereof. (c) That in the alternative, if for some or the other reason, the relief sought for by the petitioner in paragraph 1 of this writ application is not acceded to by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents be directed to pay the petitioner the scale of pay of Rs. 880-1510/- with effect from the 1st of April, 1981 and the revised scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- with effect from the 1st of January, 1986, with a further direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the aforesaid scale and thereby to provide the petitioner with the arrears of salary thereof.” Mr. R.N.Mukhopadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would very fairly submit that though in the writ application filed in the year 1993 there was a different averment made by the petitioner as with regard to anomaly in the pay scale 3 but then after lapse of next 16 years the Government had already been taken decision which should also help the case of the petitioner and therefore, the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh if the petitioner would approach with a representation bringing on record the subsequent developments including the judgment of this Court and the Apex Court. In the opinion of this Court, the prayer of Mr. Mukhopadhaya is very fair and reasonable and in fact the counsel for the State will have no objection in considering the case of the petitioner for grant of similar benefit which has been given to the counter part of the petitioner. That being so, this application is disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/