IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9449 of 2010 1. ARUN KUMAR S/O SRI GOVIND PRASAD R/O VILL.- NOHTA, P.S.- FATUHA, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN.) CUM JOINT SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY, FINANCE (BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE TEXT BOOK PUBLISHING CORPORATION, PATHYA PUSTAK BHAWAN, BUDH MARG, PATNA 6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE TEXT BOOK PUBLISHING CORPORATION, PATHYA PUSTAK BHAWAN, BUDH MARG, PATNA ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Rajeev Roy, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, A.C. to S.C.-7. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate. ======== 3. 01.07.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is serving as Assistant in the Text Book Publishing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). He is aggrieved by the resolution of the State Government bearing Memo No. 125 dated 01.02.2010, Annexure-5, whereunder in consideration of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee Assistant has been allowed the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- although the Committee/Corporation taking into consideration the scale allowed to the Assistant during the earlier revision had recommended for grant of scale of Rs. 5500-9,000/-. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that other Assistants like Accounts Assistants and Proof Readers who were previously in the scale of Rs. 2500-2750/-, like the petitioner and other Assistants, have been allowed the higher scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- but it is only the Assistants who have been differentiated without there being any tangible differentia to differentiate their case. In support of such contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the - 2 - earlier pay scale granted to the Assistant as also over the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hazari Lal Vs. State of Haryana, reported in A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 1504 and Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and others, reported in A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 879. Highlighting the aforesaid anomaly petitioner has represented before the Managing Director of the Corporation. The Corporation in consideration of the recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee had recommended to the State Government grant of higher scale to the petitioner and other Assistant but the Government in its wisdom chose not to accept the recommendation of the Corporation. In the circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to permit the petitioner to represent before the State Government requesting the Government to modify the resolution dated 01.02.2010, Annexure-5 by granting the petitioner and other Assistant higher scale of Rs. 5,000- 8,000/-. 3. Let the petitioner file fresh representation along with a copy of this order before the Principal Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department who should consider the same in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of its receipt. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)