IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8625 of 2006 MD.RASHEED ANSARI, SON OF LATE AZIMUDDIN ANSARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SARAIYA KHAJURI, P.S. NABI NAGAR, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. ………………………………………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE CIVIL SURGEON, AURANGABAD. 3. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. JANARDAN PRASAD, PHARMASIST AT PRESENT POSTED AT RAJKIYA AUSDHALAY, JAMHORE, P.S. JAMHORE, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. ………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate. For the State : M/s. Madhuresh Prasad, G.P. XII and Prabhat Ranjan, AC to G.P. XII. ----------- 2. 11.2.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed vide Annexure-‘1’ as a Pharmacist in the pay-scale of Rs.680-15- 690. However, subsequently, his pay-scale had been reduced to Rs.535-765 in the year 1987 and thereafter every replacement scale etc. had been given in the aforesaid lower scale. Petitioner’s claim is that he is entitled for the 2 replacement pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000 with effect from 12.2.1982 and Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 9.8.1999. It is also claimed by the petitioner that Respondent No.5, who is on similar footing to that of the petitioner, is being given higher pay-scale. Ordinarily, this Court would not have gone to examine this matter as even if it is accepted that according to the petitioner, his pay-scale has been lowered down, the same was allegedly done in the year 1987 itself, which was not challenged by the petitioner for long time. However, since the petitioner claims that he had filed a representation before the Respondent No.2, the Civil Surgeon, Aurangabad and that has not been disposed of by the concerned, let the petitioner file a fresh representation before the Respondent No.3, the Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner before the Respondent No.3 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be disposed of by the Respondent No.3 within three months on its own merit in accordance with law. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion 3 with regard to the merit of the case. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)