IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1707 of 2010 With LPA No.1950 of 2010 ***** In LPA No.1707 of 2010: Ram Naresh Prasad Thakur, S/O Late Shatrughan Prasad Thakur, R/O Village- Sundarpur Ratwara, P.S. - Piar, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, at Present Posted in the office of Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Work Division, Vikash Bhawan, Samastipur. …….. Petitioner—Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, R.E.O., Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Superintending Engineer, R.E.O., Works Division, Darbhanga. 4. Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Works Division, Samastipur. In LPA No.1950 of 2010: KEDAR MANDAL, son of late Baleshwar Mandal, resident of village- Ramaul, P.S. Hathauri, Distt. Samastipur, at present posted at the office of Executive Engineer, REO, Works Div., Vikash Bhawan, Samastipur. ……Petitioner—Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Engineer in Chief, R.E.O., Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Superintending Engineer, R.E.O., Works Division, Darbhanga. 4. Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Works Division, Samastipur. …Respondents—Respondents. ----------- 02- 4.5.2011 Heard Mr. Shyam Sundar Sinha ‘Shyam’ for the appellants, and Mr. Ahshanuddin Amanullah, learned Government Advocate No.4 appearing for the State of Bihar. 2 2. Both the appeals have been preferred against a common order dated 21.8.2009, passed in C.W.J.C. No.6065 of 2003 (Ram Naresh Prasad Thakur vs. The State of Bihar and others), and C.W.J.C. No.6180 of 2003 (Kedar Mandal vs. The State of Bihar and others). Mr. Shyam Sundar Sinha ‘Shyam’ appears for both the appellants, and Mr. Ahshanuddin Amanullah appears on behalf of the State in both the appeals. The appellants have preferred the instant appeals for quashing the order dated 6.5.2003, whereby time- bound promotion granted to the appellants with effect from 6.10.1980 in case of Ram Naresh Prasad Thakur, and with effect from 25.9.1980 in case of Kedar Mandal, were cancelled on the ground that they did not pass the requisite departmental accounts examination. 3. It would appear from the order of the learned Single Judge that Ram Naresh Prasad Thakur (appellant of LPA No.1707 of 2010), passed the departmental accounts examination during the pendency of the writ petition, whereas Kedar Mandal (appellant of LPA No.1950 of 2010) was granted exemption from appearing in the departmental accounts examination. In view of the fact that in one case exemption was granted by the department, and in other case 3 the appellant had passed the departmental accounts examination, the learned Single directed the authorities to consider their cases for grant of time-bound promotion. 4. Mr. Shyam Sundar Sinha ‘Shyam’, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that whereas Ram naresh Prasad Thakur has now retired and Kedar Mandal is still continuing in service. He submits that the cadre of junior accounts clerk and senior accounts clerk were merged with effect from 1980, and the scales were also merged with effect from 1.5.1980, and common scale of accounts clerk was granted to them. His grievance is that the Fourth Pay Revision Committee did not take into account merger of the cadres, and it allows a lesser scale to the employees who were holding the post of junior accounts clerk. Learned counsel submits that similarly situate employees moved this Court in writ jurisdiction against fixation of lower pay-scale by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. The writ court after hearing the petitioners as well as the State held that the Fitment Committee cannot make any discrimination in respect of grant of pay-scales to the accounts clerk on the basis of their having held the post of junior accounts clerk and senior accounts clerk. Learned 4 counsel for the appellants submits that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in its judgment. 5. Mr. Ahshanuddin Amanullah, learned Government Advocate No.4 appearing for the State submits that in terms of the direction contained in order dated 21.8.2009, the State Government had decided the issue for grant of promotion of A.C.P. from the date they were entitled and he submits that the respective scales have also been granted to the appellants. 6. So far as the first aspect is concerned that even after merger of the scales of junior accounts clerk and senior accounts clerk, the benefit of pay revision was not granted to the appellants, it would be open to them to represent before the department for the same which shall be decided in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid direction, these appeals are disposed of. (S.K. Katriar, J.) (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/