IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12877 of 2005 RAM CHANDRA THAKUR, son of late Khelawan Thakur, resident of village – Charuha, P S – Kurhani, District – Muzaffarpur, Bihar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Water Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Barracks, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Circle, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Irrigation Mechanical Division, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 05. 6.9.2010 The Court need not take note all that has transpired in the present writ application earlier because the focus of adjudication now is going to be the speaking order which has come to be passed on 20.9.2007 by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), which has been brought on record with the supplementary counter affidavit as Annexure-A. Vide order dated 14.8.2007 the Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order as to what would be the replacement pay scale to which the petitioner working as a Blacksmith Grade-I would be entitled to. According to the petitioner, he was drawing a salary in the scale of 1200-1800 and the replacement pay-scale given by the 6th Pay Revision Committee w.e.f. 1.1.96 was 4000-6000 but the respondent authorities have given him a pay-scale of 3050-4590. The service history of the petitioner has been dealt with in the speaking order. It has clearly emerged from the said order that the pay-scale of 1200-1800 which the petitioner was getting was not the pay-scale of the petitioner. The basic pay-scale available to the 2 petitioner was 580-860 and 1200-1800 pay-scale arose due to grant of time-bound promotion given to the petitioner. It is the stand of the respondents that recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee or the Fitment Committee was based on the basic pay scale which an employee earned and the corresponding replacement pay-scale arising therefrom. The recommendations did not take into consideration the pay scales which came to accrue to an employee because of time- bound promotion. The claim of the petitioner that the replacement scale of 4000-6000 should be given as he was drawing salary in the pay scale of 1200-1800 is stated to be incorrect to the extent that the basic pay scale which the petitioner was entitled to, was at the relevant time 975- 1540 as well as 950-1400 for which the replacement scale given was 3050-4590. The claim of the petitioner that he should be granted 4000- 6000 on the basis of scale of 1200-1800, therefore, is a misplaced kind of submission. The reasoning given in the speaking order seems to be correct and the benefit which the petitioner is looking for by way of replacement scale on the basis of 1200-1800 cannot be made available to him as the replacement scale can only be given on the basis of recommendations of Pay Revision Committee and not otherwise. There is no case made out to interfere with the speaking order which has now come to be passed by the respondents, which is Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)