IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.346 of 2010 1. Nasim Ahmad S/O Late Abdul Hakim Khan R/O Vill.- Hirauta, P.S.- Triyani, Distt.- Sheohar At Present Posted As Accounts Clerk In The Office Of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Hajipur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Principal Secretary Mior Irrigation Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 3. Principal Secretary Finance Department, Old Secretariat, Patna 4. Chief Engineer Minor Irrigation, Muzaffarpur 5. The Superintending Engineer Minor Irrigation Circle, Muzaffarpur 6. Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department Division, Hajipur 7. The District Accounts Officer Pay Fixation Section, Muzaffarpur 5/ 08/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Clerk in 1993 in the pay-scale of Rs.975-1540/-. It is submitted that he was in fact entitled to be given the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300/-. Others appointed like him on compassionate grounds were given the latter scale, but he has been discriminated. Reliance has been placed on orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.12697/04, C.W.J.C. No.5701/04 and C.W.J.C. No.6542/04. Learned counsel for the State submits that by a Circular No.13293 dated 5.10.1991 with regard to 2 compassionate appointments it was clarified that such appointments cannot be given on a class-3 post in excess of the scale of Rs.1200-1800/-. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to the scale being claimed by him. The Circular dated 5.10.1991 did not come up for consideration in the cases cited on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed in 1993. He has filed this writ application on 5.1.2010 for a retrospective correction of his pay-scale from the date of appointment and consequential relief from that date. There is no explanation in the writ petition for this long and inordinate delay. Even if any orders were passed by the Court with regard to similar persons, a person claiming parity in treatment can still be denied the relief for reason of not having come to the Court in time. There is no pleading of what efforts were made by the petitioner to enforce his claim. The policy dated 5.10.1991 does not appear to have come up for consideration in any of the cases relied upon on behalf of the petitioner. There is no challenge to the policy dated 5.10.1991 in the present writ application either, if it could have been done after such a long period of time and having obtained a benefit thereunder. If the respondents have themselves granted benefits of the 3 pay-scale to similarly situated after 5.10.1991 in excess of that permissible, either suo motu or on directions of any Court, when they themselves may have raised no objections under the Circular dated 5.10.1991, the petitioner can legitimately be said to have a grievance. The State cannot be permitted to urge that the State cannot grant a relief contrary to the policy and yet simultaneously grant such relief itself to others or to suffer the grant of such relief by reason of court orders. It shall not be very fair to the petitioner for the Court to hold that in absence of any challenge to the policy he stands discriminated by orders of the Court and no relief can be given to him. But that the petitioner was not vigilant in pursuing his claims for long years also cannot be lost sight of. In such a situation, any claim for correction of his pay-scale has to be read down as limited to the period of three years from the date of filing of the present writ application. Let the respondents now consider his claims, especially with regard to the allegations of discrimination as the respondents cannot have two standards of conduct with regard to similarly situated persons governed by the same policy. Let such decision be taken within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this 4 order. It is expected that if the respondents find substance in the claim or in any part of the claim, necessary consequential orders shall be passed simultaneously. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)