Judgment N. Pandey, J. 1. Petitioner, who is presently working as Editor, Rajbhasha patrika, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to provide him the pay scale of Rs.1000-1820, later revised to rs.2000-3500/- with effect from 1-1-1986. The post of Editor, Rajbhasha patrika was sanctioned and created in the pay scale of Rs.1000-1820 by the order of the Government vide Sanction order No.1640 dated 8-9-1986 (Annexure-2 ). Such scale was at par to the pay scale of the Deputy Director, department of Rajbhasha. 2. It appears on behalf of certain employees of Rajbhasha Department a representation was filed before the minister Incharge against the decision of the government to fill up the post of Editor from open market. It is alleged considering such a representation, the minister by modifying the minimum requirement of qualification reduced the scale to Rs.880-1510/- from Rs.1000-1820/- to enable the repre-sentationists to apply for the post. 3. Undisputedly, thereafter, the post was advertised by the Bihar Public service Commission in a daily newspaper, disclosing the pay scale of rs.880-1510/-. A copy of such advertisement is Annexure-5 to this writ petition. The petitioner and several others applied for the post and after following due process of selection, he got his appointment and joined the post on 2-8-1988. This is also not in dispute that as per the revised pay structure on the basis of recommendation of the 5th Pay revision Committee-cum-Fitment committee, replacement scale of the petitioner was fixed to Rs.1640-2900. 4. Mr. Katriar learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that admittedly while creating the post of Editor, the State Government vide its order issued under Article 166 (1) of the constitution had sanctioned a pay scale of Rs.1000-1820 for the post. Therefore, the decision of the Minister of the department to reduce pay scale of such a post without approval of the Cabinet was illegal and without jurisdiction. Because any decision to alter or modify the previous government order could only be possible by an order under its power conferred under Article 166 (1) of the constitution of India read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. In support of such a proposition, Mr. Katriar placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Patna High Court ministerial Officers Association and many others V/s. State of Bihar and ors. In support of such a proposition, Mr. Katriar placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Patna High Court ministerial Officers Association and many others V/s. State of Bihar and ors. , 1990 (1) P. L. J. R.446. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted mat a bare reference to the order of the State Government dated 26-8-1989, contained in Annexure-A, would reveal that while modifying the previous Sanction Order No.1640 dated 8-9-1986, the scale of Editor was reduced to Rs.880-1510. Therefore, it is wrong to say that previous order of the government was modified merely by an executive order. 6. It was next contended that even at the time of advertisement itself the pay scale of the post in question was advertised at Rs.880-1510. The petitioner, therefore, with open eyes applied for the post and got appointment and joined as back as on 2-8-1988. Therefore, he is not entitled in law to raise such questions at this stage. 7. It was next contended that as per the recommendation of the Pay revision Committee-cum-Fitment committee, the corresponding revised scale of Rs.880-1510 was fixed at Rs.1640-2900, therefore, on this ground also petitioner cannot claim another scale. Because scale of all other employees, who were drawing Rs.880-1510 was revised to Rs.1640-2900. 8. In my view, having regard to the facts, as noticed above, there cannot be any dispute that a Governmental order issued on due compliance of Article 166 (1) of the Constitution can only be altered or reviewed by a similar order. There is no doubt that on the day the post was advertised, the decision of the minister or the Department was not approved by the Government. But admittedly as would appear from annexure-A, previous order of the government dated 8-9-1986 (Annexure-2)was modified reducing the scale of rs.880-1510. Therefore, having regard to the revised Government decision dated 26-8-1989, it would not be open at this stage to question the validity of such an order. That apart, petitioners appointment was admittedly made on the modified and reduced scale of Rs.880-1510 and no objection was ever raised. 9. Mr. Therefore, having regard to the revised Government decision dated 26-8-1989, it would not be open at this stage to question the validity of such an order. That apart, petitioners appointment was admittedly made on the modified and reduced scale of Rs.880-1510 and no objection was ever raised. 9. Mr. Katriar next contended that from a bare reference to the chart detailed in paragraph No.6 of the rejoinder petition, it would reveal that in view of the anomaly in pay scale created by the Pay Revision committee-cum-Fitment Committee, a Rajbhasha padadhikari, drawing the scale of Rs.880-1510 would now be entitled to a revised pay scale of Rs.1800-3300 whereas petitioners replacement scale has been made to Rs.1640-2900. Yet there is another anomaly whereby, the replacement scale of an Assistant working under the petitioner has been made to Rs.1640-2900 at par to his scale. 10. He, therefore, contended that a bare reference to these facts and annexure-13 and 14 to the rejoinder petition, it would appear that having appreciated such type of anomalies and administrative complications, the director and Secretary of the Department as well as other authorities from time to time had recommended before the government that petitioner be provided a pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- i. e. the replacement scale of Rs.1000-1810/-. The grievance is in spite of such recommendation of the competent authorities, the respondent authorities have failed to revise the scale. 11. Mr. Katriar contended that with respect to some of the employees of the Translation Department of this high Court a Bench of this Court having noticed anomalies in pay in comparison to the employees of Rastra bhasha Parishad while disposing of c. W. J. C. No.1553 of 1995 had directed the authorities to grant same scale as was available to their counter parts in rastra Bhasha doing same and similar job. Similar view was taken by another bench in C. W. J. C. No.5902 of 1995 and following the ratio of C. W. J. C. No.1553 of 1995 issued similar direction. 12. In my view, facts of the above mentioned cases are not similar to the present one. Though there is a claim for higher scale, but there is no complain that other employees doing same or similar job are getting higher scale and emoluments. 12. In my view, facts of the above mentioned cases are not similar to the present one. Though there is a claim for higher scale, but there is no complain that other employees doing same or similar job are getting higher scale and emoluments. In this case, the claim is for enhancement or upgradation of the scale, because in view of revised scale even officers of lower status will be entitled for same scale or even higher. 13. Therefore, having regard to the facts of this case although I have held that later decision of the Government was issued in terms of the requirement of Article 166 (1) of the Constitution and thus, the petitioner would not be entitled to question the decision of the authorities whereby, the scale for the post in question was reduced, but having regard to the anomalies, which have been pointed out and the recommendations of the competent authorities of the Department, issued from time to time, it will be proper for the respondent-authorities of the State government to take a reasonable decision to meet the undue hardship, which may commensurate to the utility and status of the job. 14. In the result, this writ application partly fails, so far the first relief is concerned, but it is allowed to the extent, the direction has been issued to the respondents to consider petitioners grievance for the second relief. Petition Partly Allowed