IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5591 of 2010 1. Intezar Anjum S/O Md. Wahid R/O Vill.- Purakothi, P.O.- Belaon, P.S. Kaler, Distt.- Arwal 2. Ganesh Kumar S/O Ram Charitra Paswan R/O Vill.- Shahpur, P.O. Pinjor, P.S. And Distt.- Jehanabad 3. Ram Chandra Paswan S/O Sri Narayan Paswan R/O Vill.- Shahpur, P.O.- Bhoja, P.S.- Khodawandpur, Distt.- Begusarai 4. Md. Moinuddin S/O Hafiz Md. Ismail R/O Vill.- Peerganj, P.O.- Tehta, P.S. Makhdumpur, Distt.- Jehanabad Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Finance, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya 4. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Gaya 5. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Jehanabad 6. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Arwal ----------- 3. 15.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. I.A. No. 6378 of 2011 is stated to have been filed today on behalf of the petitioners. The office shall place it on record. The Court requested the counsel for the petitioners to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that ground. In view of the nature of the order to be passed now in light of the pleadings in the I.A. application, the Court does not consider it necessary to explicitly deal with the facts of the case except to the extent necessary. Suffice it to notice that the petitioners were appointed on 29.9.1986 on the post of Assistant in the scale of Rs. 535-765/-. Their original grievance 2 was that the advertisement provided for the scale of Rs. 580-860/-. The appointments were to be made in the Gaya Collectorate. The respondents in their counter affidavit sought to suggest that the petitioners were appointed from the panel prepared in pursuance of that advertisement after the advertised vacancies had been fulfilled in the category of Clerk (Accounts Clerk (NREP) and therefore cannot seek parity in pay scale. That they were raising the claim belatedly in the present writ application filed in 2010. I.A. No. 6378 of 2011 moulds the relief claimed urging that subsequently the petitioners have been given the revised pay scale of Rs. 4000- 6000/- being the revised scale of Rs. 580-860/-. The contention is that the petitioners are now therefore entitled to the A.C.P in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- as the revision of the pay scale has to be taken to its logical conclusion. Counsel for the State has rightly submitted that he has had no opportunity to take instructions on the I.A. application. He secondly submits that it remains a question of fact to be considered if the revised pay scale as of Rs. 580-860/- has been given as claimed. It is further aptly contended that the 3 grant of A.C.P. scale based even on the revised scale may be a matter for scrutiny in accordance with the Rules and if satisfied undoubtedly the entitled scale shall have to be given to the petitioners. If the petitioners represent before the authorities inviting their attention to the fact that they have already been given the revised scale of Rs. 580-860/- let their claim for A.C.P. be considered in that light in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the petitioners raises issues of discrimination, that is also required to be adequately considered. Needless to state that if the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim necessary consequential orders shall be issued simultaneously. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)