IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11319 of 1996 BRAJESHWAR SAHAY SON OF LATE CHATURBHUJ SAHAY RESIDNET OF MOHALLA PURABSARAI, P.S. TOWN DISTRICT MUNGER AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA B/140, POLICE COLONY, ANISABAD, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, PATNA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE BUREAU CUM PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT) GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE SECRETARY (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT), BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 7 16/11/2010 In terms of the earlier direction of the Court dated 7.9.1998 claim of the petitioner for grant of a particular pay scale was considered by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar and as a special case, pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 was given to the petitioner which would be evident from annexure-A annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. This order does not satisfy the petitioner. His contention is that petitioner had higher qualification and reputed experience and claimed parity with Cartographer - 2 - working in the Agriculture Department and he should be treated as Class I Cartographer. From the materials which have been pleaded and annexed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is evident that the petitioner had made a claim of similar kind not only before the Pay Revision Committee but also even before the Pay Anomaly Committee which were the two experts bodies which were appointed to recommend the pay scale which an employee had to be given. Claim of the petitioner was rejected by both the expert bodies after due deliberation and the recommendation thereafter accepted by the State was given to the petitioner. However, it seems that because of intervention of the High Court, as a special case he was given the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500. The Court fails to understand the basis or the ground on which in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court can give a direction to pay a particular pay scale to an employee where there are no recommendation of that kind made by the Pay Revision Committee or the Pay Anomaly Committee. Such disputes are best left to expert bodies which have the - 3 - advantage of judging the nature of work, status and the qualification etc. which should beget the particular pay scale. It is not a case of non consideration rather it is a case of consideration and rejection by the expert bodies. Even otherwise the Chief Secretary has given a pay scale as a special case to the petitioner pursuant to the High Court’s order dated 7.9.1998. Petitioner should be more than happy now and since he has retired many years ago and is already enjoying the post retiral benefits on the special pay scale given to him by the Chief Secretary, this Court is not willing to get into the nity- gritty of the claim, more so when it is not based on any sound reason or law on which any direction can be given in favour of the petitioner. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)