IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4441 of 2006 ANANT KRISHNA SAHAY SON OF LATE KRISHNA CHANDRA SAHAY RESIDENT OF BHAGWAN ROAD, MITHAPUR, P.S. JAKKANPUR, PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MECHANICAL WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MECHANICAL FIELD MACHINERY DIVISION, DIGHA CAMP KARBIGAHIA, PATNA. ----------- 3 03/11/2010 This is the third visit of the petitioner to the High Court. The facts and the background which have been there for the petitioner to litigate who came to be appointed to the work charge establishment was also removed from the post along with many others. They came to be reinstated on the intervention of the Court and at one point of time the matter even travelled to the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 274 of 1996 and analogous cases. In the L.P.A. the Court allowed the appeals with a direction that the appellants along with similarly situated employees should be paid their salary in the lowest stage of the time scale of pay admissible to the respective posts. This is the background under which the petitioner - 2 - worked as a Compilation Clerk under the respondents. Petitioner came before this Court in yet another writ application which is precursor to the impugned order contained in annexure-17. That writ application was C.W.J.C. No. 10944 of 1999 which was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner will file his representation which shall be considered and a decision taken. The detailed order or the reasoned order now passed in annexure-17 is under challenge in the present writ application. This order is dated 10.9.2005 and it gives complete background to the dispute raised by the petitioner taking note of various orders which came to be passed by this Court from time to time including the order passed by the Division Bench. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that when the petitioner came to be re-appointed in the work charge establishment on the post of compilation clerk, he was given the pay scale of Rs. 975-1540 and that pay scale was subsequently replaced on revision to Rs.3050-4590. Since the pay scale given to the petitioner was based on the judicial order and decision and those pay scale the petitioner readily accepted and worked, the claim now - 3 - being made that he should be treated as Clerk and should be given the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 is not based on any cogent and rationale reason. Annexure-3 to that extent has no meaning in light of what has transpired in the various litigations which came before this Court. This writ application being misplaced, is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)