IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11141 of 2001 PRAVIN KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 22-9-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is a Probation Officer and his claim is that Probation Officers should have been allowed the same pay-scale by the 5th Pay Revision Committee which has been granted to the Inspector of Police. From the averments in the writ petition it is clear that the Association of Probation Officers and other had moved this court through a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 2844/92 which was disposed of by order dated 21st. May, 1997 with a direction to the Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar to consider the representation of the Probation Officers for awarding parity in pay-scale with Inspector of Police. Pursuant to such observation and direction the representation of Probation Officers has been considered by the Finance Commissioner, Bihar and their claim has been rejected by order dated 10-3-1998 contained in annexure-4. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that persons of some other services such as Child Development Project Officer and Sub- Registrar in different departments have been benefited by order of remand passed by this court whereas in the case of petitioner the Finance Commissioner has rejected the claim of the petitioner without any good reason. It was highlighted that the post of Probation Officers has been made a gazetted post since 1981. Even after considering the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, this court finds that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the Expert Bodies in great detail as is apparent from annexure-A to the - 2 - Naresh counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3, Commissioner-Cum- Secretary, Finance Department and after remand by this court the respondent no.3 has again considered all the relevant pros and cons of the matter and then has found the claim of the petitioner un-acceptable. From the order contained in annexure-4 it appears that the authorities have considered the fact that pay-scale of Assistant Probation Officers has remained lower to the pay-scale of Sub-Inspector of Police and similarly the pay-scale of Principal Probation Officer has remained lower to that of Superintendent of Jail. It has also been noticed that post of Inspector of Police is a promotional post from Sub-Inspector of Police whereas post of Probation Officer is filled up by direct appointment. The law relating to power of the court to go into merits of pay- scales fixed by Expert Bodies is well settled. Only where the court finds apparent arbitrariness and discrimination it may interfere in such matter. In this case I find that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference specially when his grievance has been considered after the matter was remanded by this court in a writ petition filed by Association of Probation Officers. In the facts of the case, this court finds no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)