IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.796 of 2009 BIMAL THAKUR, SON OF RAM LAKHAN THAKUR, DECEASED RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – MAHARAJ GHAT, POLICE STATION – KHAJEKALA, PATNACITY, DISTRICT- PATNA ……………. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE FINANCE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE HEALTH COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DIRECOT-IN-CHIEF, HELATH SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 8. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 9. THE PRINCIPAL, NALANDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, KANKARBAGH, PATNA ……………. RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. For the State: Mr. N. K. Singh, Adv. ***** 04. 02.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was appointed as Artist-cum-Modeler in Nalanda Medical College, Patna in the pay-scale of Rs. 190-330/- by the private management. The College was taken over by the Government on 01.01.1980 and his pay-scale as per Finance Department’s letter no. 2016(2), dated 13.03.1984 was fixed as Rs. 425-605/-. In the year 1981, as per 4th Pay Revision Committee’s report, the revised pay-scale for the post of Artist-cum- 2 Photographer Modeler was fixed by the Pay Fixation Committee. The revised pay-scale of Artist-cum-Modeler at different Medical Colleges was fixed differently for different Medical Colleges. Petitioner raised his objection, which was not considered. He filed a Writ Application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7600 of 1989, which was dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner for raising his objection before the competent authority. Thereafter petitioner filed Title Suit No. 117/92, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Again C.W.J.C. No. 7466 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner for similar relief, which was also dismissed as not maintainable vide Order dated 02.02.2006. Petitioner, however, was given liberty to take recourse of other remedial measures available in law. He filed his representation, which has been dismissed by the Principal, Nalanda Medical College, Patna vide Order contained in Memo No. 344, dated 06.02.2008. The order, passed by the Principal, Nalanda Medical College, Patna is under challenge in the present Writ Application. The Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the Principal, Nalanda Medical College, Patna, it has been stated the petitioner’s pay fixation was done by the Health Department at the time of taking over of the 3 College in the pay-scale of Rs. 220-315/-. Subsequently, his pay has been revised on different occasions, as per the recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee in the revised pay-scale and it has also been stated that the Principal of the Medical College has no role to play. It is the Finance Department and the Pay Fixation Committee as well as the Pay Anomaly Committee, which decide the matter relating to pay fixation and the revision of pay-scale. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6, the Finance Secretary, Department of Finance; Health Commissioner, Department of Health; and the Director-in-Chief, Health Services Department, a preliminary objection has been raised regarding maintainability of the Writ Application after remaining in service for more than 37 long years, petitioner can not be allowed to raise such object, after his superannuation. Since, petitioner’s objection had already been found not maintainable on earlier occasion, now after so many years he can not be allowed to raise same issue again and again. The Supreme Court in several decisions has held that matters of pay-scale are best decided by the expert bodies, like, Pay Commission or Pay Revision Committee. So far petitioner’s case is 4 concerned, his pay-scale has been fixed / revised on different occasions with effect from 1981, 1986, 1996 and 2006, but he never approached Pay Anomalies Committee, objecting fixation of different pay-scale for similar post, in different Medical Colleges. After so many years, after his retirement, he can not be allowed to agitate this issue and there is no reason for interference in such matters by the Court. I find that the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not take over the responsibility of pay fixation of an employee, as the same can be done by an expert body, having expertise in this field. Petitioner could have raised his objection before the Pay Anomaly Committee at the time when pay revision used to be made and his pay was fixed in lower revised pay-scale. At no point of time he raised such objection. He has retired, after remaining in service for 37 years. It is not the proper time, when the issues, already settled, can be reopened. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application is dismissed as not maintainable. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)