IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16156 of 2009 1. KAMLESH PRASAD S/O SHRI SHIVLAL PRASAD VILL- NONER, P.S. OBERA, DISTT. AURANGABAD 2. GYAN PRAKASH BECK S/O SHRI ALKASIUS BECK VILL- JAIPUR, P.S. MAHNA TAND, DISTT. JHARKHAND 3. BINOD BECK S/O SHRI JOHAN BECK VILL- JAIPUR, P.S. MAHNA TAND, DISTT. LATEHAR, JHARKHAND 4. AJAY PASWAN S/O RAMESHWAR PASWAN R/O MANAR TOLA, P.S. DAUDNAGAR, DISTT. AURANGABAD 5. ANIL KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM BALB RAM R/O DEODUTPUR, P.S. DAUDNAGAR, DISTT. AURANGABAD 6. SATYENDRA RAM S/O SHRI KAMESHWAR RAM VILL- KOILWAR, P.S. HASPURA, DISTT. AURANGABAD 7. AMARJEET RAM S/O SHRI RAMDEO RAM VILL- TENDUA, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTT. KAIMUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AURANGABAD ----------- 2. 05.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners contend that they were applicants for posts in Class III in different regional office including the district of Aurangabad under advertisement no. 39 of 1998 published by the Bihar Public Service Commission. The pay scale notified in the advertisement was 1200-1800/-, the replacement scale being Rs. 4000-100-6000/-. Contrary to the same, the petitioners came to be appointed on lesser scale of Rs. 3200/-. The grievance, therefore, is that they are entitled to grant of pay scale as notified in the advertisement. It appears that this matter has already been considered by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 13577 of 2006 and by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 522 of 2008 arising out of the same, which appears to have also been followed in CWJC No. 7814 of 2009. 2 Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the disposal of this writ application with direction to the Respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners in light of the orders of this Court as aforesaid and pass appropriate speaking orders in terms of the directions contained therein within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. If the Respondents propose to hold that the petitioners are not similarly situated and are not entitled to be accorded similar treatment, they shall be obliged to furnish the reasons to the petitioners, grant them a representative personal hearing and then pass a reasoned and speaking order displaying full application of mind indicating the grounds and reasons which distinguishes the petitioners from those decided by this court. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)