IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16439 of 2004 SUBODH KUMAR SON OF SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAIKATPUR CHAKPAR, P.S. KHUSHRUPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE LAW SECRETARY-CUM-LEGAL REMEMBERANCER, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA. 5. THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA. 6. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (JUDICIAL) GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Sudhir Singh & Rabindra Kumar Tiwari. For the State :- Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, A.C. to AAG IV For Respondent nos. 4 & 5 :- Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG III ------ 4 13/08/2010 Petitioner is a permanent employee appointed on the post of Duplicating Machine Operator. He pleads discrimination in matter of award of replacement pay scale from 1.1.1996 vis-à-vis similarly situated other employees of the State and now even the High Court. It is the case of the petitioner that photo copier operator, duplicating machine operator to which the petitioner belongs and the document binding operators are treated as one category by the State and when the 6th Pay Revision came into effect, similarly situated - 2 - employees of the State specially Science and Technology Department were given the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 whereas in the case of the present petitioner, the replacement scale made was Rs.2610-3540. After issuance of the notification contained in annexure-2, petitioner approached the Registrar General with his representation making a grievance and basing his claim on to the replacement scale made available to other similarly situated persons. A request was forwarded to the State government which would be evident from annexure-5 but the same was turned down vide communication dated 6.8.2004 which is annexure-8. Petitioner is before the Court seeking quashing of this letter as well as direction to the State government to grant him similar replacement pay scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to subsequent development which is a decision dated 6.6.2007 communicated by the Department of Finance to the Registrar General, Patna High Court by which photo copier machine operator of Patna High Court have now been given the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 at par with the other State employees of the similar kind, contention is that if the State - 3 - could see reasons for granting pay parity with regard to photo copier machine operator, then there is no reason for rejecting the claim of duplicating machine operator which the petitioner is. But after all he was only asking for pay parity with similarly situated employees of the State government. Keeping in mind the notification dated 6.6.2007 and considering the fact that though all the three categories of personnel have been treated as a Class, it is only the petitioner who has been left out by an unfair treatment of not being made available the same pay scale as photo copier machine operator or binders. Obviously, it is a case of discrimination. More so, the terms and conditions of recruitment would show that the petitioner is better qualified and has better qualification and is expected to have better qualification for consideration in appointment to the post than other similarly situated employees of the State. A case for discrimination has been made out which stands fortified by the subsequent decision contained in annexure-9. Annexure-8 is thus quashed. Matter is remitted back to the department of Finance, Government of Bihar to - 4 - re-consider the matter afresh and take a decision within a reasonable time frame of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands allowed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)