JUDGMENT : Nilu Agrawal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.12.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17126 of 2012 whereby the appellant-writ petitioner had sought revision of his pay-scale from Rs. 1,290/- to Rs. 1,470/- from the date of his appointment on 28.4.1987 on the basis of a Government circular issued by the Finance Department bearing No. 6022F(2) dated 18.12.1989. The writ application came to be filed in the year 2012, which was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 2. The matter has been heard on merits. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 28.4.1987 and posted in Middle School, Dharhara in the district of Munger where his service book was opened in which his pay-scale was shown to be Rs. 1,290/-. The appellant sought revision of his pay-scale from Rs. 1,290/- to Rs. 1,470/- in pursuance to the Government circular of the Finance Department dated 18.12.1989, Having failed to get the revision in his pay scale, he moved in writ before this Court in 2010 wherein his case was directed to be reconsidered by the competent authority, He then fought a second legal battle by way of the present writ under appeal, challenging the rejection of his representation dated 28.10.2010 stating therein that in spite of various orders passed by this Court in the writ applications filed by similarly situated persons, the appellant has been discriminated and has not been granted revised pay-scale of Rs. 1,470/-. In pursuance to the earlier round of litigation by the appellant, Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna has passed a detailed order on 28.10.2010 wherein the said Government resolution dated 18.12.1989 has been discussed and a comparative chart has been furnished, which is extracted as follows: pkVZ&, pkVZ&ch ladYi ds ikjk&4 ds vuqlkj fnukad 1-1-1986 ds iwoZ fu;qDr f'k{kdksa dk osru fu/kkZj.k ladYi ds ikjk&8 ds vuqlkj fnukad 1-1-1986 ds ckn fu;qDr f'k{kdksa dk osru fu/kkZj.k fnukad 1-1-1986 dks osru 730-00 fu;qfDr frfFk dks 1200 MhŒ,Œ 394-20 ¼$½ rhu vfrfjDr osru o`f} bUVjehfM,V izf'kf{kr dks 90 Hkkjkad 35 izfr'kr 255-50 fu;qfDr frfFk dks osru 1290 dqy 1379-70 ;k 1380-00 osru eku 1200&30&1560&40& 2040 esa izdze 1380 ¼$½ rhu vfrfjDr osru o`f} bUVjehfM,V izf'kf{kr dks 90 fnukad 1-1-1986 dks osru 1470 3. Thus, from perusal of the said chart a reference to appointees on or before 1.1.1986 and appointees after 1.1.1986, shows that as per the said resolution at para 4, the cut-off-date was fixed as 1.1.1986 and for the teachers appointed on or before the cut-off-date, the pay scale would be revised to Rs. 1,470/- but as per para 8 of the said resolution the basic pay of the Assistant Teachers appointed after 1.1.1986 would be Rs. 1,200/- on which three increments of Rs. 90/- will be given and the pay on the date of appointment after 1.1.1986 would be Rs. 1,290/- which the petitioner was receiving from the date of his appointment, which was admittedly on 28.4.1987. Hence, the appellant was getting the pay-scale inconformity with the Government resolution dated 18.12.1989. Thus, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. Next, the counsel for the appellant has sought parity of pay-scale given to similarly situated Assistant Teachers for which he relies on the order dated 29.7.2004, passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8333 of 1999 (Shiva Kant Jha v. The State of Bihar and Others) stating therein that this Court, in a similar kind of matter, allowed the similar claim of a Assistant Teacher, which has been subsequently followed by another Bench of this Court in the case of large number of Assistant Teachers in C.W.J.C. No. 10295 of 2009 (Malati Sinha v. The State of Bihar and Others) and other analogous cases decided on 15.9.2009 wherein Assistant Teachers having been appointed even after the cut-off-date, being 1.1.1986, have been given the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1,470/-, but the pay-scale of the appellant has not been revised in pursuance to the circular dated 18.12.1989. 5. In Our opinion, the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8333 of 1999 has not considered paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Government circular dated 18.12.1989 in the correct perspective and does not lay down the correct law, hence, is overruled. The subsequent order dated 15.9.2009, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10295 of 2009 and other analogous cases also stands overruled. Thus, apart from the delay and laches, the appellant is not entitled to any relief even on merit. The order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. I agree.