JUDGMENT : Daya Chaudhary, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.12.2011 on account of revision of pay scale as admissible to other employees as their pay scale was at par with the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the year 2006 as well as in the 2011, the pay scale of the post of Carpenter was at par with pay scale of ASI. Subsequently pay scale of ASI has been revised, which is on the higher side but the pay scale of the petitioner has not been revised in the same ratio. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court many letters exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent-Department. 3. Written statement has been filed by respondent-State by relying upon the instructions dated 23.5.2012 (Annexure R-1), wherein, it has been mentioned that the proposal for revision of pay scales of the Government employees may be sent to the Department of Finance, which have subsequent to the implementation of the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub Committee. It was also mentioned in the instructions that remaining demands of the Government employees now could be considered by the next Pay Commission. It has also been clarified in the said instructions that the Department of Finance shall not consider any other reference and it is to be considered by the next Pay Commission. 4. Keeping in view the stand taken in the written statement, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent-State to send the proposal of revision of pay scale of the petitioner to the next Pay Commission. 5. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy.