JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. A bunch of petitioners have filed the present writ application in a representative capacity trying to raise the grievance of the so-called members, who are stated to be Scientific Officers, Class II, for a particular replacement pay scale. They allege discrimination in implementation or grant of replacement scales as per the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee or the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee. They want a direction upon the State to give a uniform pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- instead of Rs. 2000-3800/- which has been done in the case of certain Scientific Officers working in the various departments under the State of Bihar. 2. The pay-scale in question relates to the period 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1995 because thereafter two further Pay Revision Committees recommendations have been made and implemented, which has significance to the dispute and the adjudication which is required to be made in the present writ application. 3. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the State of Bihar is the model employer and a welfare State ought to grant similar benefit to all similarly situated employees and they cannot pick and choose for grant of replacement scale from department to department or on a selective basis. The grant of pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3800/- to some of the members of the Association and Rs. 2200-4000/- to others on the face of it smacks of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. The stand of the State is that when the 4th Pay Revision Committee was constituted, various proposals and claims came to be made by the employees who were represented before the Commission. The State Government later on even constituted what is known as Pay Anomaly Removal Committee in view of many issues which required further consideration or clarification, looking at the size of the working force and the posts which exist under the State. It is not the case that the claims of these petitioners or the Scientific Officers were not considered. All these issues were brought to the notice of the expert bodies and the State has only implemented their recommendations which came to be made. There has been no deliberate effort on their part to hold back benefits from some of the members of the Association, who are before this Court. All these issues were brought to the notice of the expert bodies and the State has only implemented their recommendations which came to be made. There has been no deliberate effort on their part to hold back benefits from some of the members of the Association, who are before this Court. The State has no discretion to take an independent view on the kind of pay-scales or replacement scales which should be given to the employees working for them. Their stand in the counter affidavit in so many words is that they have gone by the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee and it was their recommendation to maintain two different kinds of pay-scales looking at the qualification, the source of recruitment, the nature of work to be performed by them etc. etc. 5. The Court would have been inclined to entertain the writ application and delve into the matter from the point of view to examine whether there has been a deliberate mischief or lack of fair play verging on violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India provided these materials were apparent or glaring on the face of record, despite the limitations which the Courts have in such matters especially while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since certain responsibilities are best shouldered by expert bodies. The Hon`ble Supreme Court on many occasions have recorded their opinion that the kind of pay-scale which should be made available to an employee is not the domain of the Court but is the principal duty of the bodies like Pay Revision Committee or Pay Anomaly Removal Committee to look into. 6. Since there had been deliberations and the recommendations so made envisage two kinds of replacement pay-scales which came to be implemented then it is not a case of oversight or some mischief at the level of the government. 7. Even otherwise keeping in mind that thereafter two Pay Revision Committees recommendations have already been implemented and most of the grievances of the petitioners have been redressed now, reopening an issue which relates to the year 1986-1995 decade may not be required or advisable in the given circumstance. 8. Writ is dismissed for the above stated reasons.