IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8386 of 2010 1. Dr. Bharat Jee Gupta, S/O Late Sri Tek Narain Lal, R/O Bans Kothi Compound, D.N. Das Lane, Langer Toli, P.S. Kadamkuan, District-Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary , Animal Husbandry And Fisheries Department,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 2. The Secretary, Animal Husbandry And Fisheries Department,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 3. Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department Of Finance,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary, Department Of Finance,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 5. Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry And Fisheries Department,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 6. Director, Animal Husbandry Department,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. R.N.Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. M. Nasrul Huda Khan, SC 18 with Md. Naushaduzzaha, AC to SC 18 For Accountant General: Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate -------------- 5. 11.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Accountant General. The petitioner has superannuated on 31.1.1996 from the post of Touring Veterinary Officer, Sampatchak. The relief sought is for grant of the revised pay scale of Rs. 12,000-16,500/- in stead of Rs. 6,500 – 10,500/- with effect from 1.1.1996. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that the pay scale claimed is based on the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee. It is binding on the State Government. Reliance is further placed on an order of this Court in CWJC No. 14475 of 2005 preferred by other Touring Veterinary Officers when the Court relying on the Fitment Appellate Committee report upheld the claim. 2 It is not under dispute that the judgment in CWJC No. 14475 of 2005 has attained finality. Unfortunately the assertion that the claimed pay scale is based on the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee finds no place in the writ petition but has been asserted in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit. The Court is inclined to dispose of the writ application with directions to the respondents to decide the claims for implementation of the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee in light of the orders inter alia in LPA No. 859 of 2007 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19802 of 2010 and the applicability thereof to the present writ petition. Shri Mukhopadhyay, for the petitioner, expresses an apprehension that if the writ petition is disposed even with direction to the respondents to examine the claim in light of certain other orders of this Court and of the Apex Court, whether they be applicable or not, still the respondents may not pass any orders requiring the petitioner necessarily to have to file a contempt application for implementation of that part of the order to consider the claim only. He therefore suggests that the mater may be adjourned to enable the respondents to take a clear stand before this Court with regard to the nature of the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee more so in light of judicial decision. In a democracy, governed by rule of law, the Court order’s carry sanctity, unless the orders are upset, varied or modified. The Court has no reason to fully accept the apprehension of the petitioner and shall like to believe that the respondents shall act responsibly. Keeping in mind the apprehension of the petitioner the Court directs the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries to examine the grievances of the petitioner and in light of 3 the present discussion pass a reasoned and speaking order displaying full application of mind with transparency with the claim stated to be based on the recommendations of the Fitment Appellate Court within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)