IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7451 of 2010 1. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S/O Late Ram Diwas Sinha, R/O Village Sarkuna, P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna. 2. Md. Nizamuddin, S/O Late Nasruddin, R/O Battiah, P.S. Bettiah, District Bettiah, West Champaran. 3. Amit Kumar, S/O Late Ramashray Singh, R/O Mohalla East Patel Nagar, Gandhi Murti Road No.2, P.S.-Shastrinagar, Patna. 4. Laleshwar Prasad Singh, S/O Late Ram Jatan Singh, R/O Village Dularpur, P.S.- Punpun, District- Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary , Water Resources Department,Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary , Water Resources Department,Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department,Anishabad, Patna. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Arbind Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. A. N. Deo, SC 26 ------------ 3. 29.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. The writ petition has already stood dismissed with regard to petitioner no. 4 on 9.2.2011 on account of inadequate pleadings and therefore the present order shall not prejudice him in any manner. The petitioners 1-3 seek the relief for grant of pay in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- in lieu of Rs. 4000-6000/- being paid to them on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk. It is their contention that the posts of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk were merged to form one class of Accounts Clerk on1.5.1980.The demerger thereafter has taken place on 28.9.1999. Even if the claims of the petitioners are accepted as presented, the petitioners 1 and 3 have been appointed on 17.11.1999 and 6.10.1999 respectively after the demerger. Reliance by them on an order of this Court in CWJC No. 12691 of 2009 (Smt.Chandra Prabha Kumari vs. 2 The State of Bihar) is of no avail to them as at paragraph 2 of the order it is adequately noticed that their appointment was prior to demerger. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the merger on 18.2.1981 and the demerger on 28.9.1999 were with regard to the Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk of the Collectorate and the Moffasil Offices in the Establishment Section alone. The petitioner was a Clerk in the Works Division which never fell within the ambit of the two. The submission is based on an order of the Water Resources Department, dated 28.7.2010 interpreting the order of merger dated 18.2.1981. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a letter dated 5.5.2009 of the Finance Department bearing No. 3847 obtained by him under the Right to Information Act which states that no formal decision for demerger of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk had been taken till date. The aforesaid discussion shall still exclude petitioner no. 2 who was appointed on 5.8.1992 after merger and before demerger. The relevance of his claim shall depend upon what was merged and what was not merged. An additional issue for consideration may also be that if the three petitioners were compassionate appointees falling in a class by themselves and whether there was any separate instruction with regard to fixation of pay scale of compassionate appointees on a Grade III post. The aforesaid discussion leads the Court to the conclusion that the stage for adjudication by the Court on the question of law has still not arisen. Unless a factual foundation is not firmly established it is not possible for the Court to adjudicate in law on hypothesis. 3 The petitioner shall represent before the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, who shall grant him a personal hearing and also furnish all such documents and materials on which he proposes to deny the relief to the petitioner, if it is so proposed, grant him liberty to reply to the same and then pass a reasoned and speaking order discussing all aspects of the matter as discussed in the present order or which may be raised by the petitioner before him and decide the same within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Needless to state that if the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim necessary consequential order shall be issued simultaneously within the same period. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)