Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 441 (PAT)

Ashok Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2014-04-10

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is a retired employee, who has filed the writ application, looking for a benefit of different pay-scale than what he has been given. According to him, he was initially a Salesman, posted at Institute of Industrial Designs at Digha. When the institution came under bad times, he was adjusted as a Senior Craftsman, by virtue of Annexure-3, dated 16th of December, 1996. From a reading of Annexure-3, it is evident that he was drawing a pay-scale or Rs. 1200-1800/- and the same pay-scale was extended to him even on the post of Senior Craftsman. 3. His claim is that after the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, the replacement scale for Rs. 1200-1800/- should be Rs. 4000-6000/- and not Rs. 3050-4590/-. For that the petitioner has produced some kind of private publication with a chart indicating some of the replacement scales in generality. 4. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the notification, which the petitioner is relying upon, is not the replacement scale and does not apply across the board for every post and position in the State. What is produced is a broad categorization. It is not that the post on which the petitioner was working was not considered for revision of pay-scale. The matter was not limited to the recommendation of the Committee of the 5th Pay Revision, but against the said recommendation, the employees as well as the present petitioner made representation, even before the Fitment Appellate Committee, which was headed by a Sitting Judge of the High Court. Extract of the said Fitment Appellate Committee’s recommendation has been extracted and is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which indicates, what was recommended; what was demanded; and what was finally accepted by the Fitment Appellate Committee. It is their stand that such recommendations are not amenable to judicial scrutiny also, as would be evident from reading of Division Bench’s decision, annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 5. There is no substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. The generality of submission cannot form the basis for giving a direction for changing the pay-scale of an employee on his asking. 5. There is no substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. The generality of submission cannot form the basis for giving a direction for changing the pay-scale of an employee on his asking. The recommendation was made by an expert body, scrutinized by a sitting High Court Judge, after giving an opportunity of hearing and what was recommended by the Fitment Appellate Committee has been accepted and extended to the petitioner. 6. The Court is in agreement with the decision of Division Bench that replacement scales are not to be given by the Courts merely because the employee is not satisfied and is looking at a better kind of scale, which may be available to other employees of other departments. If there was no recommendation, especially made for the post and the position, which the petitioner held, there could have been arguable point with regard to the replacement pay-scale as to where he should be fitted into, but since there is a specific recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee, which stands notified, the petitioner cannot beget a pay-scale, beyond what has been given to him. 7. The Generality of the submission that the Annexure-A is a doubtful piece of document, which cannot be relied upon, is an irresponsible statement made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The Court does not appreciate such kind of assistance. 8. Writ application has no merit, it is dismissed.