Judgment A. K. Ganguli, J. 1. This writ petition has been referred to the Division bench by a learned single Judge by an order dated 28th April, 1988. 2. The subject matter of challenge in this writ application is Annexures-6 and 10. By Annexure-6 the Bihar Police building Construction Corporation private Ltd. (hereinafter calls as the said corporation) directed that the revision of pay scale and change of nomenclature of the post of Lower Division Clerk of the said Corporation will be given effect to after obtaining necessary orders from the State. By Annexure-10 at page 166 of the brief it has been further stated that the pay scale of the Lower Division clerk may be fixed at the scale of Rs.580/- to 860 with effect from 1-4-1981. 3. The petitioners are admittedly appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the said Corporation and initially their pay scale was Rs.220/- to 315 and the same was revised to Rs.260 to Rs.408/-. Thereafter it was revised to the pay scale of Rs.580/- to 860/- and the last revision has been made on the basis of the report of the Fourth Pay Revision committee. 4. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that on the basis of the representation made by their Association for enhancement of their salary, the chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said Corporation agreed to place that matter before the Board of Directors of the said Corporation. Thereafter, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said Corporation changed the designation of the post of the petitioners from Lower Division Clerk to that of Assistant and approved the proposed enhancement of salary of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.730/-to 1080/- with annual increment. This will appear from Annexure 2 page 32. 5. The further case of the petitioners is that the Board of Directors of the said Corporation approved the said proposal of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. Ultimately, the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 16th June, 1984 was sent to the bureau of Public Enterprises (Finance department) (hereinafter called the bureau) for concurrence. 6. It is not in dispute that the bureau raised objection to the said enhancement and also the change of the nomenclature and sought certain clarifications from the said Corporation. Thereafter, clarifications were given by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said Corporation to the Bureau. 6. It is not in dispute that the bureau raised objection to the said enhancement and also the change of the nomenclature and sought certain clarifications from the said Corporation. Thereafter, clarifications were given by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said Corporation to the Bureau. It is also not in dispute that the Bureau ultimately did not approve the said enhancement of pay scale of the petitioners, as a result of which, the chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said Corporation deferred the implementation of new pay scale of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.730/- to 1080/-. 7. In the background of these facts, the question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether or not the Bureau is competent to raise such objection, and whether such objections raised by the Bureau are binding on the said Corporation. 8. Admittedly, the said Corporation is a Government Company, and the entire share holding of the said Corporation is by the Government. The said Corporation is a Government of bihar enterprises and therefore, the said corporation is coming under the control and supervision of the said Bureau. 9. It may be stated here that initially the Bureau was not made a party to this proceeding. While hearing the matter, another Division Bench of this court found that the Bureau is a necessary party and thereafter a direction was given by the order dated 22nd December, 1992 to add the Bureau as a party. However, after being added, the Bureau filed a counter affidavit affirmed by the under Secretary, Bureau of Public enterprises (Finance Department)Government of Bihar. In the said affidavit it has been stated in paragraphs 14 and 15 that the said Corporation is a state sponsored Corporation constituted under the Indian Company Act, 1956. Its entire share capital is subscribed by the State Government. It has also been stated that the said Corporation has been enlisted at Serial No.34 of the Bureau vide Bureaus Letter No.6112 dated 26-4-1979. These averments in the counter affidavit of the Bureau are not effectively controverted. The said Corporation in its affidavit has also taken a similar stand. 10. In that view of the matter, the admitted position is that the Bureau has authority under the law to issue necessary instructions about the pay structure of the employees of the said Corporation. 11. These averments in the counter affidavit of the Bureau are not effectively controverted. The said Corporation in its affidavit has also taken a similar stand. 10. In that view of the matter, the admitted position is that the Bureau has authority under the law to issue necessary instructions about the pay structure of the employees of the said Corporation. 11. It is not in dispute that by the proposed order of the Board of Directors of the said Corporation some structural changed in the pay scale of the employees were introduced and before such structural changed could be effected the proposal of the Board of directors of the said Corporation was sent by the authorities of the Corporation itself to the said Bureau for its concurrence. This also shows that the bureau had authority to regulate and to give direction about the fixation of the pay scale of the employees of the said corporation. 12. Apart from that, in the writ petition in para-11 it has been admitted that the Bureau is a wing of Finance department of the Government of bihar. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the said corporation is authorised by virtue of its memorandum of association to pass necessary orders about the pay scales of its employees and in support of the said argument, learned counsel relied on Article 47 of the said Articles of Association. However Article 48 of the said articles of Association which starts with a non-obstan clause gives over-riding power to the Government to issue such direction and instructions from time to time which the Government thinks necessary in regard to the Finance, conduct of business and affairs of the Company. The said Article further provides when such directions are given the company is bound to give immediate effect to the directives or instructions so issued. 14. It is quite clear that through the said Bureau the Government keeps its control over the affairs of the said corporation. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid position in the Articles of Association the Bureaus power and control over the said Company cannot be questioned. 15. It has been repeatedly observed by the Apex Court that in matters relating to fixation of pay scale the court should be very slow and cautions to interfere. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid position in the Articles of Association the Bureaus power and control over the said Company cannot be questioned. 15. It has been repeatedly observed by the Apex Court that in matters relating to fixation of pay scale the court should be very slow and cautions to interfere. Unless pay-scale so fixed is grossly unfair or favours a particular class of employees and thereby created invidrous discrimination against another class in violation of the equality clause, the Court should not interfere. 16. Here it is nobodys case that the pay scale has been fixed in such a manner as to favour one section of employees and cause prejudice to another section. The pay scale which has been approved by the Bureau, namely, Rs.580/- to 860/- on the recommendations of the Fourth Pay revision Committee has been made applicable to all the similarly placed employees of the Corporation. Therefore, the complain on the score of Article 14 is totally ruled out. 17. It is also not a case where the petitioners can complain that equal pay is not made available for equal work. In fact, no such argument was advanced. Therefore, it is very difficult for this court to interfere with the pay scale as suggested by the Bureau in the facts and circumstances of this case. No mala fide or bias has been either pleaded or argued against the Bureau by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, this court is unable to pursuade itself to interfere with the impugned orders namely at Annexures 6 and 10. The writ petition therefore, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.