IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2058 of 2010 1. DINESH CHOUDHARY S/O LATE NATHUN CHOUDHARY, R/O VILL AND P.O- TEHTA, P.S MAKHDUMPUR, DISTT- JEHANABAD 2. GUPTESHWAR SAO S/O LATE RAM KRIPAL GUPTA, R/O VILL JAMUHARI, P.S MEHENDIA, DISTT- ARWAL 3. SURESH PRASAD VERMA S/O LATE NAGESHWAR PRASAD R/O MOH-RAMNAGAR, P.S಄ JEHANABAD 4. SUDESHWAR PRASAD @ SUDESHWAR PRASAD S/O LATE HARI PRAJAPAT, R/O MOH- MALAHCHAK, P.S- JEHANABAD, DISTT- JEHANABAD 5. VINOD KUMAR SINHA S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA SINGH R/O VILL MANSURPUR HALLAYA, P.S GORAUL IN THE DISTRICT OF VAISHALI 6. ASHOK KUMAR S/O SRI DEVNANDAN SAH R/O MOH- ASHOK NAGAR, ROAD NO. 4, P.S- KANKARBAGH IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA 7. RAJBALLABH RAM S/O LATE RAM NANDAN RAM R/O VILL RAMPUR DIARA, P.S MANER, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPRTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 4. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM- COLLECTOR, GAYA 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM- COLLECTOR, JEHANABAD 7. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUM-COLLECTOR, PATNA ----------- 2/ 10/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners claim to have been appointed in between 1987-1990 as Junior Accounts Clerk and given pay scale accordingly. The contention is that on 1.5.1980 the post of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk were merged into one post of Accounts Clerk with the designated pay scale which was denied to the petitioners. - 2 - The de-merger took place on 28.8.1999 deciding that those who were drawing the pay scale of an accounts clerk will not be affected by the de-merger. Reliance is placed on certain orders of this Court holding that those who were appointed on the post of accounts clerk during the period of merger wrongly given the designation of Junior Accounts Clerk and a lower pay scale were entitled to the appropriate pay scale of accounts clerk. Learned counsel for the State urges that those to whom the relief has been granted of the appropriate scale of Accounts Clerk came to this Court in time. The claim of the petitioners is unreasonably delayed. Countering the submission learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out from the order in C.W.J.C. No.403/06 that it was preferred by persons appointed in 1993-94. The issue of law with regard to the petitioners stands settled by this Court both by a Single Bench and a Division Bench and is therefore no more res integra. The petitioners are entitled to the appropriate pay scale of accounts clerk as per the law on the date of their appointment. That only leaves the issue of moulding of the relief. This Court cannot be unmindful of the laxity on - 3 - the part of the petitioners as urged on behalf of the State and the financial implications that it would suddenly create upon the State in payment. This Court therefore considers it proper to mould the relief and to direct that the actual monetary benefits shall be available to the petitioners only from the date that they satisfy the authorities of having filed their first representation for grant of such relief. If the petitioners file a representation along with proof of such evidence of their having filed their earlier representation let the same be considered in accordance with law and disposed off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)