Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served on the post of Assistant Accountant in Munger Treasury. He has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by Treasury Officer bearing Memo No.1619 dated 16.11.2006, Annexure-1 whereunder scale payable to the petitioner has been reduced from Rs. 5,000-8,000/to Rs. 4,000-6,000/- on the ground that he was appointed as Treasury Clerk on compassionate ground in May 1988 and had not opted for Treasury Cadre in 1979. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as Treasury Clerk on compassionate ground in May 1988 and at the time of appointment' he was allowed the scale of Rs.1,400-2,600/- admissible to other Treasury Clerk who opted for Treasury Cadre in 1979. Aforesaid scale was revised in terms of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee to Rs. 5,000-8,000/- with effect from 1.1 .1996 but petitioner and other Treasury Clerks were allowed the reduced scale of Rs. 4,000-6,00 whereafter the Treasury Clerks including the petitioner approached this Court in C.w.J.C. No. 3063 of 1992 in which interim orders were passed directing payment of higher scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/to the petitioner and others. Under final order dated 26.7.2001 aforesaid writ petition was allowed quashing the different letters of the Finance Department whereunder Treasury Clerks were allowed the scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/- with further direction to grant all the Treasury Clerks including those appointed after 1979 the scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. For ready reference operative portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted here-in-below:- In the result, I allow this application by quashing the letter dated 11th October, 1991 (Annexure-1), letter dated 14th September, 1992 (Annexure-14), letter dated 12.2.1993 (Annexure-15), letter dated 4.6.99 (Annexure-30) and Resolution dated 7.8.99 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) and direct the State-respondents to implement the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee forthwith and positively within one month from today. I also direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- which they were admittedly getting by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court from time to time but has been stopped from the month of May, 1999, within the same period. Lastly, it is made clear that pension of petitioners no. I also direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- which they were admittedly getting by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court from time to time but has been stopped from the month of May, 1999, within the same period. Lastly, it is made clear that pension of petitioners no. 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 44, 81 and 98, who have retired, on such revised scale of pay shall be finally fixed in the said replaced scale of pay without any further delay. 4. Against the judgment dated 26.7.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3063 of 1992, Annexure-2 State respondents preferred L.P.A. No. 165 of 2002 which was admitted for hearing under orders dated 17.2.2004, Annexure-4. Perusal of the order admitting the appeal indicates that during the pendency of the appeal writ petitioner herein (respondents in the appeal) were allowed to get the salary in the higher scale. Later L.PA No. 165 of 2002 was. dismissed under orders dated 27.4.2010, Annexure-15. Against the order dismissing the aforesaid L.P.A. State respondents approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. NO.1381 of 2011 which was also dismissed under orders dated 12.5.2011. 5. Having perused the impugned order dated 16.11.2006, Annexure-1 it is quite evident that scale payable to the petitioner has been reduced to Rs. 4,0006,000/- only on the ground that he was appointed as Treasury Clerk on compassionate ground in May 1988 and had not opted for Treasury Cadre in 1979. There is no dispute that petitioner was appointed as Treasury Clerk in the scale of Rs.1,400-2,600/- which was also being paid to other Treasury Clerks who opted for Treasury Cadre in 1979. In terms of the recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee the scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600/- was revised to Rs. 4,000-6,000/-. Appointment having been made at a later date cannot be a ground for reducing the pay scale. This Court under orders dated 26.7.2001, Annexure-2 appreciating the fact that petitioner and others were appointed in the scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600/- revised scale whereof is Rs. 4,000-6,000/- quashed the different order resolution reducing the scale to Rs. 4,000-6,000/- with specific direction to allow the petitioner and others the scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. While admitting L. P .A. No. 165 of 2002 interim order dated 17.2.2004 was passed approving payment of salary to the petitioner in the higher scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600/- revised scale whereof is Rs. 4,000-6,000/- quashed the different order resolution reducing the scale to Rs. 4,000-6,000/- with specific direction to allow the petitioner and others the scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. While admitting L. P .A. No. 165 of 2002 interim order dated 17.2.2004 was passed approving payment of salary to the petitioner in the higher scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-, in my opinion, therefore, there was hardly any occasion for the State respondents under the impugned order dated 16.11 .2006 and Finance Department letter dated 13.3.2007, Annexure-13 to again reduce the pay s .ale of the petitioner from 5,000-8,000/- to 4,000-6,000/-. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.11.2006, Annexure-1 as also the Finance Department letter nO.1693 dated 13.3.2007, Annexure-13 is quashed with direction to the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner pay scale of Rs.5,0'00-8,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and the amount already recovered should also be refunded to him within a reasonable time. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed.