IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4469 of 2007 1. SYED ZAFFAR HUSSAIN son of late Mazhar Hussain 2. Ganauri Ram son of Late Mohan Ram 3. Kamal Kishore Mandal son of late Karu Mandal All petitioners are posted as Sample Collector Department of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning Scheme, Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, P O and P S. Sabour, District- Bhagalpur….. Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Director of Agriculture Bihar, Patna. 2. The RAjendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University Pusa, Samastipur. 4. The Director, Administration Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa Samastipur. 5. The Comptroller, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa SAmastipur. 6. The Dean-cum-Principal, Bihar Agriculture college, Sabour, Bhagalpur. 7. The Chief Soil Survey Officer, Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, Bhagalpur. 8. The Assistant Comptroller, Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, Bhagalpur. .. Respondents. 2. 30.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Rajendra Agriculture University as also learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition reads as follows:- (i) For issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents authorities to give the petitioners (Sample Collector) same pay sale of Lab Attendant in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 with all consequential benefits with effect from 1.1.1996 since the date of petitioners’ equal post (Lab Attendant) has been given the benefit of same.” With regard to the aforementioned prayer, 2 learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that till the issuance of the impugned order, the revised pay scale of the post of Sample Collector, held by the petitioners had the same pay scale as that of Lab Assistant and therefore this time also the State Government in all fairness was required to maintain parity of the same and equal pay scale for aforementioned two posts and for no justifiable reasons, the post of lab assistant has been given the higher pay-scale of Rs.3200-4900/- whereas the post of Sample Collector has been provided with a lesser pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. Counsel for the University on the other hand would submit that such pay fixation has been done by the State Government in keeping with the recommendations made by the experts who have taken into account various factors including the educational qualification at the time of entry as also nature of duty and the job assignment of the two posts. In the opinion of this Court, the decision of the pay revision committee as accepted by the State Government can be assailed on very limited ground. In this writ petition however there is no pleading on the 3 basis of which the petitioners can successfully assail the decision of the State Government. Reference by learned counsel for the petitioner to paragraph 9 of the writ petition, reading as follows;- “(9) That it would not be out of place to mention here that the pay scale of Sample Collector and Lab Attendant in the same pay scale before the VIth Pay Revision Commission i.e. 1.1.1996.” would be of little avail inasmuch as this is a historical fact being mentioned with regard to the earlier equivalence of the pay scale but that by itself may not be the reason for even continuing such pay-scale after the revision of pay if there are discernible reasons for the Pay Revision Committee for not allowing the continuance of such parity in the pay scale. In that view of the matter, while this court is not inclined to interfere in the matter then it would still give liberty to the petitioners to file a compact representation to the Director Administration of the University giving facts and figures supported by documents to claim revised salary for the post of Sample Collector at par with the revised salary of the post of Lab Assistant. On receipt of such representation the Director 4 Administration will examine the matter and would forward the same with his comment to the State Government which would take its final decision strictly in accordance with law. In the event, the Government would find that the both the two posts are identical either in the matter of entry in the service on the basis of qualification or promotional prospects or job requirement, it would pass an appropriate speaking order for revising the pay scale of the post of Sample Collector but then if the Government would find the nature of duty and job requirement of the two posts are quite distinguishable including the entry point of qualification or promotional prospect, it would reject the same by recording its reasons. Such an exercise must be completed by the respondents within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of representation of the petitioner along with a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)