IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3734 of 2009 Chittaranjan Thakur & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors with CWJC No.3735 of 2009 Ramanand Jha & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 26/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Accounts Clerk under the Social Securities Pension Scheme at the Block and Sub-division level offices. They were drawing the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. Subsequently, for administrative reasons they started to discharge duties of Accounts Clerk in the Collectorate Cadre in the year-2000, but were formally merged/absorbed in the Collectorate Cadre in 2007. The controversy that they were absorbed in 2000 when they were asked to discharge duties of Accounts Clerk under the Secretariat Cadre or were so done formally after merger is not relevant at this stage. The State Government framed the Bihar State Employees (Service Conditions and Assured Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 as amended from time to time. It comes into force with effect from 9.8.1999. The State respondents considering that the 2 petitioners had completed 12 years of service and were eligible for first A.C.P. granted the same in the pay-scale of Rs.4,500-7000/-. This was on the premise that the scheme under which the petitioners were appointed did not provide for any promotional avenue for Accounts Clerk. The State Government therefore purported to act under Section-3(2) of the scheme as amended up to 23.3.2006. The State opined that they did not belong to the Collectorate cadre till the relevant date i.e. 9.8.1999. They were thus entitled to the next higher pay-scale of their own cadre under the A.C.P. scheme. Mr. Mukhopadhyaya appearing for the petitioner submits very fairly that he is not very confident to address the Court on the issue whether there was a promotional avenue for the Accounts Clerk under the scheme in which they were appointed or not. He, however, sought to urge that Senior Level Clerks in the Collectorate Cadre with whom the petitioners were merged also did not have a promotional post and therefore should have been given A.C.P. in their next higher pay-scale, but have been granted A.C.P. in the pay-scale of Rs.5000- 8000/-. He therefore urges the issue of hostile discrimination. Learned counsel for the State very fairly also 3 submits that at this stage he is not in a position to answer whether Senior Level Clerks of the Collectorate Cadre had a promotional avenue or not. In this nebulous state where the necessary facts themselves do not appear to be available to test the allegations of hostile discrimination, as alleged, it is not proper for the Court to hold either ways by any findings. Leaving the question open, liberty is granted to the petitioners to represent before Respondent No.6. The Court expects that if the foundational facts for alleging hostile discrimination are found to be correct, then only in that event the authorities shall address themselves to the issues and not otherwise. Let such consideration, on a representation to be submitted by the petitioners, be done by the respondents and disposed by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of such representation by the petitioners. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)