JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is working as a Personal Assistant in the Directorate of Consumer Protection, Department of Food, Supply and Commerce, Government of Bihar. The reason for his approaching the High Court is the pay scale which has been given to him vis-a-vis the Personal Assistants working in the Secretariat of the State of Bihar. He is in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/- whereas he wants a pay scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/-. 3. The petitioner is basing his claim on the circular dated 20th December, 2000 contained in Annexure-3, specially paragraphs 4 and 6 of the said circular. According to him if the pay scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- is allowed to similarly situated employees then there is no reason why he should be given lower pay scale. 4. Prima facie the submission made by the petitioner sounded attractive but if one looks into the matter a little deeper then rational for giving the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/- emerges not only from the material brought on record by the petitioner but also on the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 5. Petitioner was initially an employee of the Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation and was working on the sanctioned post of Steno-cum-Typist. Subsequently when the Consumer Protection Act came into play a separate department or directorate was created. For putting up the infrastructure across the State both at the District level as well as at the State level for various posts, options were demanded from the employees and the petitioner chose to opt on the post of Personal Assistant. Based on the option exercised by him he joined the department and was absorbed. Since a separate department and hierarchy was created when the question of granting pay revision arose it is evident that the Fitment Committee in its recommendation gave a separate proposal with regard to pay scale which would be made available to the employees of Consumer Protection. Separate pay scale based on the recommendation of the Fitment Committee was notified and Annexure-4 which is part of the writ application would establish the same. Separate pay scale based on the recommendation of the Fitment Committee was notified and Annexure-4 which is part of the writ application would establish the same. Once recommendation of the Fitment Committee with regard to the employees of the Consumer Forum was recommended separately and notified then there is no question of drawing analogy of the kind of pay scale which is available to similarly situated employees who came to be governed by a separate notification contained in Annexure-3. 6. Petitioner was never a State Government employee. He opted for the post and his status has already been clarified and notified by treating him alongwith other employees of the Consumer Forum as a separate entity altogether. If that is so then the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of Annexure-3 as he never was a State employee and he came into the service of the department or directorate which has been separately created and whose pay scale recommended and notified separately. 7. There is no merit in this writ application. It is dismissed accordingly.