IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17613 of 2011 Gajendra Upadhayay S/O Sri Baldeo Upadhayay R/O Vill. Lauhar Sripal, P.O Farna, P.S. Barahara, Distt. Bhojpur---------- -------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Principal Secretary General Administration Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary Dept. of Finance Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. Principal Secretary Social Welfare Dept., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Director, I.C.D.S. (Integrated Child Development Scheme) (Social Welfare Dept.) Indira Bhawan, Boring Canal Road, Patna---------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 21.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This is the second visit of the petitioner to the High Court after a speaking order was passed by the Director in terms of the earlier direction of the Court contained in annexure-8. Admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis on the post in question in the Department of Welfare under I.C.D.S. Directorate. His claim is that if he was appointed on the post on the basis of requisition he was entitled to some kind of pay protection over a period of time which is based on so called annexure- 3, the advertisement/requisition. The Director has considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that any appointment on contractual basis will not beget him the pay protection which the petitioner is looking for because such a policy or rule does not exist with regard to any person which has been appointed on contract basis under the government. 2 It may be clarified that the petitioner had himself chose and opted to join the present post after giving up of his post of an assistant teacher. The so called pay protection being talked about was limited to the initial engagement on contract and not a continuing one. The present appointment has no co-relation to the past service. The claim of the petitioner that subsequent revision in the pay scale of Assistant Teacher would beget him the benefit of pay revision is misplaced as petitioner has been appointed on a fixed remuneration and not a varying pay scale. The reasoning given by the Director for rejection of his claim is cogent and rational and requires no interference. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)