3IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6095 of 2007 Gauri Shankar Ram, S/o late Jhagru Thakur, R/o Village Khaira, P.S. Sikarta, P.S. Darigaon, Dist. Rohtas. At present, Pharmacist, Additional, Primary Health Centre, Darigaon, At & P.O. Darigaon, Dist. Rohtas. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, At & P.O. Sasaram, Dist. Rohtas. 3. The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, At & P.O. Sasaram, Dist. Rohtas. 4. The District Account Officer, Rohtas, At & P.O. Sasaram, Dist. Rohtas. 5. The Medical Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Block, At & P.O. Sasaram, Dist. Rohtas. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 29.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “01. THAT, this writ petition is being filed for, a direction to the Respondents for correction of pay fixation of the petitioner, as per the Government Resolution No. 3PAR 01-3-89/6021/F(2) dated 8/12/89 applicable from 1/1/1986 and payable from 1/3/1989 being fifth pay Revision Committee and similarly as per the Government Resolution No. 3M-2- 5-VE-PU-01/99-660(F)2 dated 8/2/1999 applicable from 1/1/96 payable from 1/4/97 being sixth pay Revision Committee in the pay Scale of 1320-2040 right from 29/3/93 (date of joining of the petitioner) and the pay Scale of 4000-6000 right from 1/4/97 as the pay fixation has been wrongly done in the pay Scale of 975-1540 from 29/3/93 and 3050-4590 right from 1/1/96 as the 2 petitioner is a Matriculate Registered Pharmacist and he deserves the above pay Scale in the light of order of the Government of the Health Department issued under signature of under Secretary to Government vide Memo No.4 2198(3) dated 2/8/67 as well as letter No. 1339(21)H dated 25/11/86 from the Director-In-Chief Health services, Bihar Patna.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer, would submit that the petitioner is working on the post of Pharmacist since 29.3.1993 and yet he was being paid lesser pay-scale of the post of Compounder, whereas, the petitioner was entitled to get the pay-scale of the post of Pharmacist. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has highlighted that the petitioner is a matriculate and has also been registered by the Pharmacy Council of State of Bihar on 30.11.1984 and such registration has been revised from time to time on annual basis. He would accordingly submit that when the post of Pharmacist in the Health Department has been separately included in the resolution of the Finance Department dated 8.2.1999 in the pay-scale of Rs. 4,500 to 7,000, the denial of the same to the petitioner by giving him the revised pay-scale of the post of Compounder in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050 to 3 4,590/- is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. In this case, not only a counter affidavit but also a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein the respondents have explained that the petitioner was appointed actually on the post of Compounder and not on the post of Pharmacist. It has further been explained that the Pay Revision Committee has consistently made a separate pay-scale for Compounder different to pay-scale for the post of Pharmacist. In this context, reliance has been placed on the letter of the Finance Department dated 7.2.1994 explaining the aspect that the Compounder having matriculation qualification and those being non-matric will have a different pay-scale. It has further been stated that when the petitioner had staked his claim for the grant of pay-scale of the post of Pharmacist, he was asked to produce his matriculation certificate as also the proof of passing the Pharmacy but, he did not submit such documents. In reply to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has enclosed the matriculation certificate as also the Certificate of Registration and has asserted that the petitioner, in view of the registration made by 4 the Pharmacy Council of the State of Bihar, will be deemed to have been appointed on the post of Pharmacist. In this regard, it has also been emphasized that there is no post of Compounder in the Allopathic side and that the post of Compounder in the Indigenous Medicine and its pay-scale cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is the petitioner who has sought to create confusion about himself inasmuch as, the petitioner ought to have produced the order of his appointment for claiming the pay-scale of Pharmacist. On the one hand, the counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner was appointed as a Compounder on Allopathic side but, the petitioner in this writ application has asserted on affidavit that he is a Pharmacist. Counsel for the petitioner would like to synchronize the two situations by explaining that the post of Pharmacist and Compounder are one and the same. It is however very difficult for this Court to accept such submission not only in view of the different job requirement of the post of Compounder and Pharmacist but even otherwise in view of the resolution of the Finance Department and the clarification issued 5 by the Finance Department vide its letter dated 7.2.1994. As a matter of fact, from reading of the aforesaid resolution of the Finance Department and its clarification, it becomes clear that the post of Compounder and the post of Pharmacist are two different posts. Even in respect of Pharmacist, the recommendation of Pay Revision committee and the consequential government resolution dated 8.2.1999 clearly lay down that all such Pharmacist would be entitled for the revised pay-scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000 being the replacement pay-scale of Rs. 1320-2040, who were fulfiling the qualification of Pharmacist failing which they would be entitled for a lower pay-scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000. It thus becomes clear that the post of Pharmacist requires a minimum qualification and, therefore, when the respondents had asked the petitioner to furnish the proof of his having ever appeared in the Pharmacist Examination, the petitioner had failed to produce anything for proving his claim of the pay-scale of Pharmacist. The petitioner, who has very cleverly not produced the order of his appointment while staking claim of his appointment on the post of Pharmacist has only stated that he was appointed 6 in the Government service on 29.3.1993 as a 'Mishrak' but then he will be entitled for pay- scale of Pharmacist, inasmuch as, both the Mishrak and Pharmacist are holding the same post and designation. This Court, in view of the clarification issued by the Finance Department clarifying the number of posts, would however not be in a position to accept the same. Merely because the petitioner was registered with the Pharmacist Council of India would not mean that he had passed the required examination of pharmacist course. The touchstone for deciding the pay-scale in the Government will always be either holding of the post on substantive basis as also possessing the requisite qualification for such post. The petitioner was given repeated opportunity to produce any evidence of his ever being qualified to have completed the Pharmacist course including the Admit Card or Mark-sheet of Pharmacist examination or certificate of Diploma Training of Pharmacy as a result of passing the said examination but, as would be clear from perusal of the supplementary counter affidavit he had never produced the same before the authorities. Fixation of pay-scale and its revision is a 7 job of expert for which the Government has constituted Pay Revision Committee. The same is followed by the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee and its appellate committee. The petitioner, having failed either in placing the case before the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee and its Appellate Committee, cannot now expect this Court to make an equivalence of the post and pay-scale, inasmuch as, the requirement of the two posts Compounder and Pharmacist are very well defined and well known. For all these reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)