JUDGMENT: R.K. Merathia, J.-Heard the parties at length. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.3.2004 passed by the respondent NO.2 (Annexure-5) rejecting petitioner's representation and confirming the order dated 16.2.2000 passed by the Finance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna; and for directing the respondents to pay gratuity to be calculated by adding 97% Dearness Allowance (DA), pension on the basis of adding 295% DA, interest on the provident fund amount and medical allowance at par with the Government servant. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submitted as follows. Petitioner is an association representing retired officers and servants of Ranchi Municipal Corporation (Corporation for short). After retirement, it’s members are entitled to leave salary, gratuity, provident fund and medical allowance, etc. In view of the resolution under Memo No. 663 dated 3.2.1981 and Memo No. 1323 dated 11.4.1991 issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar the retired employees of the Corporation are to be treated at par with the State Government employees in the matter of payment of retiral benefits. He also relied on Rules 43 and 44 of Chapter VII of the Patna Municipal Corporation Officers & Servants Pension Rules, 1986 (Pension Rules, 1986 for short). 4. Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. They further submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable and is barred by res judicata in view of the order/judgment dated 23.7.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. 820 of 1997(R) and dated 23.9.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1473 of 2000(R), and moreover petitioner is guilty of suppressing the said order dated 23.7.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. 820 of 1997(R). 5. The questions are whether this writ petition is maintainable, in view of the earlier orders of this Court; and whether the directions sought for, can be issued in this writ petition? The answer would be in the negative, for the following reasons. 6. It appears that one Aditya Narayan Sahu, a retired employee of the Corporation filed a writ petition which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 820 of 1997(R) for payment of his retiral benefits. The aforesaid resolution dated 11.4.1991 was relied. It was agreed that the matter may be referred to the Finance Commissioner, who will take a final decision in the matter, and the same will be binding on the parties. The aforesaid resolution dated 11.4.1991 was relied. It was agreed that the matter may be referred to the Finance Commissioner, who will take a final decision in the matter, and the same will be binding on the parties. The concluding portion of the order dated 23.7.1997 disposing of the said writ petition in general terms, reads as follows:- . "Accordingly, let this dispute as to whether the employees of the Corporation be treated at par with the employees of the State Government for all purposes including the payment of retirement benefits, be referred to the Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar for taking a final decision on the issue, who will take a final decision in the matter within six weeks from the date of filing of the relevant documents by the parties." 7. Accordingly, the Finance Commissioner, Bihar took a decision on 16.2.2000 after taking into consideration the provisions of Patna Municipal Corporation Act, the Pension Rules, 1986; the Gratuity Rules, 1983; and the following letter/resolutions of the Urban Development Department-Resolution No. 2101 dated 2.7.1991; Memo No. 1323 dated 11.4.1991, and Memo No. 663 dated 3.2.1981 relied by the petitioner; Memo No. 1935 dated 3.4.1979/4.5.1979; Memo no. 2655 dated 21.9.1993; and Notification No. 3058 dated 1.7.1928. The Finance Commissioner, inter alia, concluded as follows:- the Local Bodies were constituted under different Statutes and they were not equivalent to the Government Department and accordingly the employees of the Corporation are not the State Government employees. The decisions taken by State Government with regard to the service conditions and other benefits of it's employees do not become automatically applicable to the employees of the Local Bodies, unless such decisions are adopted by concerned Municipal Corporation or necessary provisions are made in the Act/Rules. The Group Insurance Scheme is not applicable to the Municipal Corporation. The Provident Fund Scheme of the Corporation is also different from the State Government employees. Rest other facilities-encashment of unutilized leave, rate of pension and gratuity and its calculation is similar to the State Government employees but calculation of the actual amount payable is to be made on the basis of the salary and the rate of D.A. payable before or at the time of retirement. Rest other facilities-encashment of unutilized leave, rate of pension and gratuity and its calculation is similar to the State Government employees but calculation of the actual amount payable is to be made on the basis of the salary and the rate of D.A. payable before or at the time of retirement. So far as calculation of salary and D.A. is concerned, the State Government had agreed in principle for calculation of salary and D.A. up to Fifth Pay Revision, (1991) as per State Government employees but the liability to pay the same was entirely on the concerned Corporation. There is no provision in the Municipal Corporation Act! Rules under which the employees of the Corporation becomes automatically entitled to the salary and allowances payable to the State Government employees. The D.A. on pension will be payable at the same rate which was payable to the Corporation employees. The Corporation will not make any distinction between the working and retired employees so far as Dearness Allowance/Dearness Relief is concerned. 8. The said decision was challenged by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1473 of 2000(R) raising similar issues raised in this writ petition. The stand of the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar in the said writ petition was that in view of the order passed in C.W.J.C. 820 of 1997(R), the petitioners were stopped from challenging the order of the Finance Commissioner. This Court declined to interfere. The concluding portion of the order dated 26.8.2002 disposing of the writ petition, reads as follows:- "Considering the entire facts and circumstances, though now in view of the aforesaid observation by this Court the remedy did not lie in favour of the petitioner but it will be just and proper that the matter is remanded back to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand for taking a final decision. Till the decision is taken, the impugned order shall remain in force. This decision must be taken within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment." A contempt case was filed alleging violation of the said order dated 26.8.2002 being Contempt Case (Civil) No .. 53 of 2005, which was dropped by order dated 30.4.2004 as the respondent NO.2 took a decision on 27.3.2004. However the petitioners therein were given liberty to seek remedy before appropriate forum. 53 of 2005, which was dropped by order dated 30.4.2004 as the respondent NO.2 took a decision on 27.3.2004. However the petitioners therein were given liberty to seek remedy before appropriate forum. According to the petitioner on the basis of such liberty this writ petition has been filed. 9. Now in this writ petition the said order of respondent No. 2 has been challenged. Only because the matter was remitted to the respondent No.2 and liberty was given in the Contempt case, this writ court does not become appropriate forum for reagitating the same issues. 10. Moreover in the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the Corporation it is inter alia stated that with regard to the pensioners, there is no resolution of the State Government that they would get same DA as is paid to the State Government employees and the same is governed by the Pension Rule, 1986 which also nowhere provide that D.A. to be paid to the employees of the Corporation would be at par with the State Government employees. It is further stated that in view of the precarious financial condition of the Corporation it pays 92% DA to it's pensioners; and that entire pension, as also the DA, paid to the pensioners, is borne by the Corporation from its own resources, unlike the salary for which 70% of the amount is borne by the State Government. It is further said that in view of the precarious financial condition, the Corporation is not in a position to pay the pensioners, the D.A. as also the pension at par with the State Government employees. It is further said that the Corporation employees are not Government employees; and that there is no provision that the retired employees would get. DA equivalent to the State Government employees, and that certain percentage of D.A. is being paid to the Corporation employees as it is paid by the State Government, but for retired employees neither pension nor D.A. is paid by the State Government as they both belong to different classes. 11. DA equivalent to the State Government employees, and that certain percentage of D.A. is being paid to the Corporation employees as it is paid by the State Government, but for retired employees neither pension nor D.A. is paid by the State Government as they both belong to different classes. 11. The stand of the Urban Development Department, inter alia, is that in view of the poor financial condition of the local bodies, the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar vide Resolution No. 2575 dated 29.6.1990 decided to pay only 70% (30% grant and 40% loan) as financial assistance to the additional financial burden of the Corporation and It was made clear that Government will give no other financial assistance in the establishment costs. It is further stated that the employees of the Corporation are different with the Government employees, and that gratuity, leave encashment, pension, etc. are to be paid by the Corporation to their employees. 12. Further Rules 43 and 44 of the Pension Rules 1986 are to be read together. Under Rule 43; the sanction of the Government is required and Rule 44 simply gives prospective effect to Rule 43. 13. The following observations in the case of S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, reported. in (2007)8 SCC 279 , are relevent:- "Fixing pay scale by Courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the Court should not interfere with the same. For finding out whether there is complete and wholesome identity, the proper forum is an expert body and not the writ court, as this requires extensive evidence. A mechanical interpretation of the principle of equal pay for equal work creates great practical difficulties. The Courts must realize that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even experts having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the excutive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the Court may result in cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the excutive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the Court may result in cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences. Hence the Supreme Court has considerably watered down the principle pay for equal work and this principle has hardly been ever applied in recent decision." 14. Thus in my opinion firstly, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the earlier orders passed in C.W.J.C. 820 of 1997(R) and then in C.W.J.C. 1473 of 2000(R), and secondly, it is not possible for this Court, under writ jurisdiction to issue the directions sought for, and quash the impugned order dated 27.3.2004 passed by respondent No. 2 affirming the order dated 6.2.2000, passed by the Finance Commissioner. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.