IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5456 of 2003 GOPALJI son of Late Dinanath Ji, senior clerk, A.N.M. School, Arrah, resident of Mohalla Shivganj Arrah, Ward No.18, P.O. Shivganj Arrah, P.S. Town Thana Arrah, District Bhojpur (Arrah). Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi. 2.The State of Bihar through its Secretary Cum Commissioner, Health & Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Health & Family Welfare Bihar, Patna. 4.Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Paqtna. 5.Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah. ----------- 5 6.8.2010 Heard Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application as confined in terms of order of this Court dated 30.6.2003 reads as follows:- “(i)The petitioner prays for writ/order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 5000-150- 8,000. (S-9). (ii)Directing the Respondents to fix the amount of pay in the aforesaid scale w.e.f. 1.1.96, and pay to him accordingly all the arrears within the time fixed by the court. (iii)Directing the respondents to treat the employees of A.N.M. Schools, which are financed cent-percent by the Respt. No.1, as Central Government employees, so far as retirement is concerned. (iv)Directing the Respondent not to superannuate the petitioner till he completes 60 years of age.” Mr. Sinha in support of the aforementioned prayer would straight way invite attention of this Court first to Annexure- 9, a table of the Pay Revision Committee showing fixation of pay, 2 in old scale of Rs. 1400 - 2600/- revised in the pay scale of Rs.5,000/- to 8,000/- and then to the Pay fixation order of the petitioner in Annexure-10 to establish anomaly to the extent that even when the petitioner was drawing salary in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1400 to 2600, the respondent, Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Bhojpur had illegally placed him in revised pay scale of Rs. 4000 to 6000/-. Mr. Sinha in this context has also drawn attention to the illustrative case of one Tribuvan Ram by placing reliance on his two orders for showing that when he too was in the old pay scale of Rs.1400 to 2600/- his pay revision and fixation was made in the pay scale of Rs.5000 to 8000/-. He has also pointed out that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in paragraph 9 thereof there is only an explanation that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5000 to 8000/- as such pay scale was to be given only to the persons placed on a need based post. He, however, was of the view that Annexure-A, the document in support of the statement made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, does not indicate that and therefore he contends the respondents have not supported their pleading by producing the relevant documents in question on the basis of which the petitioner was denied for the revised pay scale of Rs. 5,000 to 8,000/-. He has therefore by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of „Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Hariyana & Ors’ reported in 1988 S.C. 2181 and a judgment of this Court in the case of „Birendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of 3 Bihar & Ors’ reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 35 and also laying down that the pleadings in the writ application either by the writ petitioner or by the respondents capable of being supported by the documents must be annexed either by the writ petitioner or by the respondents, would submit that the plea of need based post the reason for denial of pay scale Rs. 5000-8000 is fit to be rejected. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with the help of counter affidavit filed in this case would submit that the demand of the petitioner for fixation of his pay in the revised pay scale of Rs. 5,000/- to 8,000/- is absolutely untenable in view of the fact that the petitioner had neither been promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk rather he got benefit of merger of the post of L.D.C and U.D.C. and secondly the petitioner in fact had earned his promotion even to the post of L.D.C. from the post of Bill Clerk for which a separate provision was made by the Pay Revision Committee, as accepted by the State Government by notifying a resolution dated 8.2.1999. In this respect he has placed reliance on Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and its enclosures wherein at Serial No. 54 the Accountant have been given benefit of pay scale on the basis of revision of pay scale. He would therefore submit that the reason on which the respondent Superintendent of Sadar Hospital had made the pay fixation is quite germane, inasmuch, he had no jurisdiction to flour the government order with regard to pay fixation. In fact, he has also placed reliance on Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in support 4 of the decision of the authority fixing revised pay scale of Rs. 4,000/- to 6,000/-. In the considered opinion of this Court, the service history of a person becomes relevant when the Pay Revision Committee and the government lays down the mode and manner of fixation of pay upon revision of pay scale. In the present case it is beyond doubt that the petitioner was initially promoted from the post of Routine Clerk to the Lower Division Clerk. He did not get promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk, and in fact he had been given the benefit of merger of the post of Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk. Thereafter, he was given time bound promotion on completion of 25 years of service and that is how he has given the pay scale of Rs.1400 to 2600/-. For such category of persons, the Pay Revision Committee had clearly made a principle as can be found from the notification of the Finance Department dated 8.2.1999 laying down revision of pay of seven categories, whose cases were referred to the Fitment Committee for consideration. In these list the Pay Revision Committee and the Fitment Committee had therefore applied the post at Serial No. 54 (ii) specifically with regard to the persons of this category who were drawing their salary in the pay scale of Rs.1400 to 2600/- after having earned promotion from the post of Bill Clerk and they were to be replaced in the pay scale of Rs.4,000/- to 6,000/-. In that view of the matter, this Court would find that 5 there was a reasonable classification fixed by the Pay Revision committee also approved by the Fitment Committee as accepted by the State Government and therefore, it will be difficult for this Court to go into nitty-gritty of rationale of such decision, inasmuch as the job of fixation of pay is to be left to the experts associated with the Pay Fixation Committee which has to take several factors into consideration while fixing such pay scale for different categories and in which the scope of judicial Review of this Court has to be confined to its rationality. The complaint of the petitioner that there was nothing on record to show the reason for denial such pay scale of Rs.5,000/- to 8,000/- to him has to be only noted for its being rejected. The whole decision of pay revision was notified by resolution dated 8.2.1999 laying down the non admissibility of time bound promotion or Selection grade post w.e.f. 1.1.96 and its being substituted by the concept of a need based post requiring that the persons in the same pay scale would be placed on higher post and corresponding pay scale as per actual need strictly on the principle of seniority cum merit. Therefore, merely because the petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 1400 to 2600/- prior to the pay revision, he could not get the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 as he was never promoted/assigned the need based post. Judged in this background, this Court would not find any anomaly in the pay fixation of the petitioner. The comparison 6 or plea of discrimination of the petitioner as against one Tribuvan Ram also seems to be wholly misconceived. Tribuvan Ram was an employee of the District Administration and he was assigned the post of Head Assistant which is a need based post. Therefore, his pay fixation was made by the Collectorate which was approved by the Pay Revision Committee. Additionally, the petitioner being the Clerk of the Health Department has his own line of promotion and therefore he cannot compare himself with the employee of the District Administration. Judged from this angle this Court would no find any substance in the plea of discrimination. This Court therefore is satisfied that the pay fixation of the petitioner was rightly made in the pay scale of Rs.4,000/- to 6,000/-. As with regard to the grievance of the petitioner for enhancement of age of retirement in State Govt. service learned Senior Counsel fairly submits that he does not intend to press the same in the light of subsequent decision of the State Government bringing at per with the employees of the Central Government. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)