IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9853 of 2001 BRIJ KISHORE PRASAD, S/O LATE GOBIND PRASAD, R/O CHOTI BAZAR, P.S.-KHAZEKALA, DISTRICT- PATNA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE HEALTH COMMISSION-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, HEALTH MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, PATNA, BIHAR. 3. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, PATNA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, PATNA. 6. JANARDAN PRASAD SINGH, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN, R/O MOHALLA CHOUDHARY TOLA, MMUAR LANE, P.S.- SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 13 08.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Case of the petitioner is that, by order passed by the then Director-in-Chief, Health Services dated 25.06.2001 he was granted super time scale of pay by order dated 21.12.1988 with effect from 1.4.1989, in view of the fact that his junior had already been granted that scale, with the condition that, if the monetary benefits have been given to the junior then only the same will be payable to the petitioner. However, later on, case of the petitioner and the said junior were examined, who is respondent no. 6 in this writ 2 application, and it was found that both of them had been wrongly granted the said scale. Therefore, by the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1, which was passed in respect of the petitioner, the same was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that this order was issued by the Director, Health Services who is not competent to review/recall the order passed by the Director-in-Chief. He has made specific pleadings in this respect in paragraph 30 of the writ application. Therefore, learned counsel for the State was directed to file counter affidavit in the case in that respect. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it is said in the affidavit that the said order was issued after getting the approval of the Secretary of the Department who is a higher authority than the Director-in-Chief. The impugned order also mentions that this order has been approved by the Secretary of the Department. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned 3 order has not been challenged by the petitioner on any other ground. The writ application, is, accordingly dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)