IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.174 of 2004 Dr. Jay Shankar Jha, Son of late Ugra Narayan Jha, resident of village Bardoha, P.S. Babubarahi, Distt. Madhubani At present posted as Medical Officer, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Naugachhia, Distt. Bhagalpur. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary and Commissioner, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Director in Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Bhagalpur. 6. The Deputy Superintendent, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur. ------ Respondents ----------- 3 29.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this writ application is being filed for commanding the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner in revised scale w.e.f. 18.3.96 and further pay all difference of amount on account of the aforesaid revisions to the petitioner. This application is also being filed for holding that the impugned non fixation of the pay scale of the petitioner in revised scale w.e.f. 18.3.96 is illegal, 2 arbitrary and without sanction of any law.” With regard to the aforementioned prayer, it would be clear in terms of the Resolution of the Finance Department sanctioning the pay-scale of the 5th Pay Revision Committee that there was a clause of option to the employee which had to be exercised once, inasmuch as, it was made clear that the option once made will not be changed. In the case of the petitioner, he had given such an option for fixation of his pay-scale in the revised pay-scale with effect from 1.1.1996 and accordingly, when the same was fixed, he had also been granted increment. After drawing of these benefits in the revised pay-scale, the petitioner suddenly came out with another application changing his option for fixation of pay with effect from 18.3.1996, which was obviously not maintainable and rightly rejected. That being so, when the petitioner is claiming benefit under the Government decision of pay revision, which is not permissible to him, his prayer made in this writ application must be and is hereby 3 rejected. Accordingly, this writ application, being wholly misconceived, is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)