ORDER : 1. The petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1992 in the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3800/-. He was appointed on the post of Scientific Officer and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Senior Scientific Officer on 02.12.2011. He has now approached this Court with the prayer for a direction upon the respondents to place him in the pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000/- and for payment of arrears of salary from 1986. 2. Heard. 3. Mr. Imtiaz Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to a decision in "Uma Kant Vyas and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors." [CWJC No.3330 of 1997], has contended that the State Government cannot create different groups within a class of service by providing different pay-scales (in a pay grade). It is contended that the Assistant Director, Mines and the Deputy Director, Mines who were appointed after the petitioner are getting more salary than the petitioner, because the State Government has erroneously placed the Scientific Officers in a lower pay-scale. 4. Mr. Navin Kr. Singh, the learned State counsel, however, contends that the petitioner about 30 years after his appointment has raised a grievance and for this reason alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that previously the petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 9875 of 1995 (P) which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.04.2008 and while so, the instant writ petition is barred by res-judicata. 5. Admittedly, Fitment Committee was appointed by the State Government and on its recommendations the State Government fixed the pay-scale of Scientific Officers. It is not in dispute that there was no representation by the petitioner or Scientific Officers before the Fitment Committee nor they approached the Fitment Appellate Committee. The petitioner's grievance is in respect of pay anomaly for which he had effective remedy before the Committee, which he did not avail. When no representation was made before the Fitment Committee and against the recommendation of the Fitment Committee no grievance was raised before the Fitment Appellate Committee, the writ Court cannot embark upon an enquiry to find out whether there is any justification in fixation of pay-scale or not. It is pleaded that the Fitment Committee recommended pay-scale for different grades of Geologists and on recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision the Scientific Officers were placed in the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. It is pleaded that the Fitment Committee recommended pay-scale for different grades of Geologists and on recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision the Scientific Officers were placed in the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. 3 The petitioner who has been promoted on the post of Senior Scientific Officer has been granted pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/-and he has also been granted benefits under the A.C.P. Scheme vide letter dated 07.09.2006. The respondents have asserted that the petitioner in terms of recommendation of the Finance Department as contained in Resolution dated 28.02.2009 has been granted pay-scale of Rs. 9300-34800/-, Grade Pay Rs.4800/-in PBII. Specific stand of the respondent-State is that all through these years the petitioner did not raise a grievance and, in fact, accepted the aforesaid benefits including the A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. In paragraph no. 7 of the counter-affidavit the respondents have taken the following objections: 7. "That it is humbly stated and submitted that the prima facie the writ petition suffers from gross delay and latches, because after a lapse of about 30 years the petitioner has approached this court and therefore on this sole ground the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. It is further stated that pay revisions of government servants are done by expert member and there after pay Anomaly Committee/Pay Fixation Committee provides replacement pay scales upon the basis of various factors such as educational qualification, experience, nature of job and responsibility and previous pay scale received by a particular cadre/service. At the same time it also involves huge financial expenditure to be incurred by government and it is for this reason that Hon'ble Apex Court have been pleased to observe in various decisions, that Hon'ble Court should be slow in interfering with matters relating to grant of pay scales as they lack the necessary expertise. That the petitioner after successive pay revisions i.e. 4th, 5th and 6th PRC has approached this Hon'ble Court without any valid legal basis because what the petitioner could not get from the Pay Anomaly Committees, he is trying to obtain such relief from this Hon'ble Court after much delay and latches and therefore the instant writ is not maintainable." 6. That the petitioner after successive pay revisions i.e. 4th, 5th and 6th PRC has approached this Hon'ble Court without any valid legal basis because what the petitioner could not get from the Pay Anomaly Committees, he is trying to obtain such relief from this Hon'ble Court after much delay and latches and therefore the instant writ is not maintainable." 6. The decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in "Umakant Vyas and Ors." would disclose that against the recommendation of the Fitment Committee the State Government created another group by providing a different pay-scale and in that view of the matter, the writ Court held that the same is not permissible in law. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.