ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) An appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the Board of Directors of the Nigam in its meeting detailed in Annexure 12 by which they have taken decision not to include these petitioners as Headquarters employees and other benefit like Steno Typist as well as Junior Accounts Clerk. (ii) A mandamus commanding respondent no.1 to 3 to recognize the employees under the writ petition, detailed in Annexure 2 working on the post of Correspondence Clerk/Typist-cum- Correspondence Clerk in different Offices of the respondent-Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, Patna as members of members of Head Quarter establishment/ cadre of respondent-Nigam and to pay them the pay scale of headquarters cadre and grant them all financial and promotional benefits with retrospective effect as has been given to Steno-Typist and Accounts Clerk of respondent-Nigam and also re-designation by way of up-gradation of the Cadre like Steno Typist who all were originally appointed along with the employees under the writ petition, including petitioners no. 2 and 3 in the same pay scale of Rs.220-315 per month. (iii) A mandamus restraining the respondents concerned from discriminating the employees under the writ petition with that of originally appointed Steno-Typist and Junior Accounts Clerk by wrongly treating them as members of the imaginary mufassil cadre, which, in fact, were never created by respondent-Nigam and thereby denying the employees under the writ petition the pay scale and promotional avenues of the headquarter establishment, which are being granted to similarly6 appointed employees under respondent-Nigam and, (iv) Any other writ or writs for granting any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Petitioner no. 1 claims to be a registered Association of the employees working in different offices of the Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Nigam’ for the sake of brevity) on different posts including the relevant posts of Correspondence Clerk and Typist-cum- Correspondence Clerk, whereas, petitioners no.2 and 3, besides being the office-bearers of petitioner no.1, are also the employees of the Nigam. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Correspondence Clerk, Typist and Jr. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Correspondence Clerk, Typist and Jr. Accounts Clerk were all appointed in the same pay scale and no separate cadre was created by the authorities of the Nigam for Headquarters(HQ) and Mufassil employees, hence legally no discrimination can be made with respect to their posts and salaries. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the aforesaid facts are apparent from the appointment letters issued to some of the employees, which were annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 1 series as well as from the Chart containing the names and details of the employees of the Nigam, which was annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 2 thereof. Hence there was no paper to show any justification of separate cadres of HQ and Mufassil employees. 5. He averred that the same dispute with respect to the treatment of HQ cadre and Mufassil cadre was raised earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 15355 of 2001, which was decided by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2001 (Annexure 11) with a direction to the authorities of the Nigam to take final decision by a reasoned order in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners further claimed that thereafter the impugned order dated 24.08.2004 (Annexure 12) was passed by the Nigam rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the grievance of the petitioners was not considered by the authorities as there were no different cadres in the Nigam in the Headquarters and Mufassil, which was governed by its Act, which contained only one type of cadre. He further argued that no such cadre division was mentioned either in the Memorandum or in the Articles of Association of the Nigam and hence the Board of Directors of the Nigam cannot create separate cadres. 7. Learned counsel for respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities contested the claim of the petitioners and specifically submitted that the matter, in issue, is a policy matter of the Nigam and the State has nothing to do with the same, but in such policy matters of the State or the Nigam, the High Court does not usually interfere. 8. 7. Learned counsel for respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities contested the claim of the petitioners and specifically submitted that the matter, in issue, is a policy matter of the Nigam and the State has nothing to do with the same, but in such policy matters of the State or the Nigam, the High Court does not usually interfere. 8. Learned counsel for respondent-Nigam and its authorities also contested the claim of the petitioners and submitted that petitioner no.1 was an Association of the employees of the Nigam represented by its General Secretary, who had already retired in the year 2010, whereas, petitioners no. 2 and 3 had also retired in December, 2003 and December, 2009, respectively, and hence in the changed circumstances they cannot maintain and continue this writ petition on behalf of the said Association, specially when the new office-bearers of the Association have not come forward for being substituted in place of already retired employees. 9. Learned counsel for respondent-Nigam submitted that there were already different cadres of HQ employees and Mufassil employees in the State Government and the same had been followed by the Nigam, which had been created under the Statute enacted by the legislature and comes within the meaning of `State’ under the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the said Act, there was no bar for the authorities of the Nigam in adapting the policy of the State Government. Hence he submitted that the policy decision taken by the authorities of the Nigam was legal and proper and required no interference. 10. It is not in dispute that the Nigam is an offshoot of the Public Works Department ( in the Road Construction Department) and has been created for that purpose. It is also not in dispute that the post of Chief Engineer of the Nigam is equivalent to that of the Secretary in the Department and is situated in the HQ of the Nigam, whereas, the post of the Superintending Engineer in the Nigam and downwards are equivalent to the officers of the department at Mufassil level. 11. From the impugned order dated 24.08.2004 (Annexure 12), it is quite apparent that the officers of the Government department were sent on deputation to the Nigam for working on equivalent posts, which fact has not been denied by the petitioners. 11. From the impugned order dated 24.08.2004 (Annexure 12), it is quite apparent that the officers of the Government department were sent on deputation to the Nigam for working on equivalent posts, which fact has not been denied by the petitioners. In the office of the Managing Director of the Nigam, there is no post of Correspondence Clerk and similar is the case of the office of the Chief Engineer of the department. At both places, Stenos are appointed, whose nomenclature has been changed to Personal Assistants (HQ). It is also not in dispute that in the office of the Project Engineer etc. and downwards in the Nigam, the post of Correspondence Clerk exists and the case is similar in the office of the Superintending Engineer of the Department, which is under Mufassil cadre. 12. The aforesaid facts had been clearly considered, verified and substantiated in paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 24.08.2004 (Annexure 12), in which it was also found that the pay scale allowed for the employees of the Road Construction Department is the same as allowed to the employees of the Nigam at different levels, namely Headquarters cadre and Mufassil Cadre. 13. Furthermore, it also transpires from the record that the structure of the HQ of the Nigam is similar to that of the Chief Engineer of the Road Construction Department (Headquarters), both having no post of Correspondence Clerk, whereas, the structure of the Regional Office of the Nigam is similar to that of Anchal and Divisional Offices of the Road Construction Department (Mufassil Offices) both having the posts of Correspondence Clerks. 14. In paragraphs no. 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned order dated 24.08.2004, the authorities of the Nigam had clearly found that the administrative structures of the HQ of the Nigam and the Regional Offices of the Nigam are completely different, whereas, benefits and emoluments of the employees of the Regional Office of the Nigam are same as given to the Mufassil employees of the Nigam. Similar is the case with respect to the posts of Steno Typist and Accounts Clerk. 15. Hence such an arrangement cannot be held to be unjustified because the works taken from the employees at different levels have separate nature and responsibilities. Similar is the case with respect to the posts of Steno Typist and Accounts Clerk. 15. Hence such an arrangement cannot be held to be unjustified because the works taken from the employees at different levels have separate nature and responsibilities. For example, the scale of Stenos at Supreme Court, High Court and Civil Court may not be the same, but still such scales are fixed considering their respective nature of work and responsibilities and they cannot be termed as discriminatory. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the authorities of the Nigam while passing the impugned order as they had adapted the same pattern for the employees of the Nigam as is adapted for the employees of the Department as well. Hence there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in such matters and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.