ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court mainly with a prayer for quashing the pay fixation chart as mentioned in Form-B, issued under the signature of respondent No. 4 and also under the signature of D.S.E., Godda, which has been later on sent to the respondent No. 3 for its verification, whereby, the pay of the petitioner has been fixed at the basic of Rs.49,000/- on 14.02.2016, by reducing the same from Rs.50,500/-, whereas the petitioner is entitled for revised pay of Rs.50,500/- on 14.02.2016, on account of promotion granted to him. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in revised basic scale of Rs.50,500/-, as per recommendation of 7th Pay Commission. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 14.02.2004 in matric trained scale i.e. Grade-I scale, having pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000/- in 5th pay revision, which has been later on revised to the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with G.P. Rs.4200/- in P.B-II under 6th Pay Revision. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in his entire service career no any proceeding was ever initiated against him and his service career is unblemished till today. It is the further case of the petitioner that in light of resolution dated 18.01.2017, petitioner was accordingly granted promotion from Grade-I to Grade-2 on 14.02.2016 and upon getting such promotion, petitioner is entitled for next level which is Rs.50,500/- which was granted by the respondent-authorities. But later on, surprisingly, the respondent No. 3 reduced the pay of the petitioner from Rs.50,500/- to Rs.49,000/- though one Gunadhar Singh, who is similarly situated to that of petitioner is getting the pay of Rs.50,500/-, which is glaring example of discrimination committed by the respondent-authorities. Aggrieved by the same, time and again, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities but no heed was paid to his said request and hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for revised pay of Rs.50,500/- in the 7th pay revision on account of promotion and the action of the respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioner from Rs.50,500/- to Rs.49,000/- is illegal, arbitrary and malafide. 4. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for revised pay of Rs.50,500/- in the 7th pay revision on account of promotion and the action of the respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioner from Rs.50,500/- to Rs.49,000/- is illegal, arbitrary and malafide. Learned counsel further argues that the action of the respondents in not fixing the salary of the petitioner as per his entitlement, is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, 31-A of Part-III of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further argues that action of the respondents is also discriminative in nature inasmuch as, one Junior to him is getting the basic pay of Rs.50,500/- per month, whereas, the petitioner is getting only Rs.49,000/- per month. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel argues that petitioner is entitled for the basic pay of Rs.49,000/- according to Rule 12(3) of Teachers Promotion Rules. Petitioner was promoted in grade-2 w.e.f. 14.02.2016 and his grade pay was upgraded from 4200 to 4600. The District Account Officer, Godda intimated to the office that no increment is allowed in the matter of promotion to grade-2 in 7th pay revision. Thereafter, the Director, Primary Education, issued letter dated 14.02.2018, mentioning therein that after getting promotion, for the pay fixation no increment is allowed and as such, rightly the basic pay of the petitioner has been reduced to Rs.49,000/- from Rs.50,500/-. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in the instant writ application. The petitioner is claiming basic pay of Rs.50,500/- from 14.02.2016, as per Clause 20 of the Resolution dated 18.01.2017, issued by Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereas, the promotion was given to the petitioner under Clause-4 of letter dated 14.04.2018, issued by Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 7. For better appreciation of the case, Clause-20 of Resolution dated 18.01.2017 and Clause-4 of letter dated 14.04.2018, are reproduced herein below: Clause-20 of Resolution dated 18.01.2017 “20. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereas, the promotion was given to the petitioner under Clause-4 of letter dated 14.04.2018, issued by Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 7. For better appreciation of the case, Clause-20 of Resolution dated 18.01.2017 and Clause-4 of letter dated 14.04.2018, are reproduced herein below: Clause-20 of Resolution dated 18.01.2017 “20. Fixation of pay on promotion on or after 1st day of January, 2016:- The fixation of pay in case of promotion from one level to another in revised pay structure shall be made in the following manner:- One increment shall be given in the Level from which the employee is promoted and he shall be placed at a Cell equal to the figure so arrived at the Level of the post to which promoted and if no such Cell is available in the Level to which promoted, he shall be placed at the next higher Cell in that Level. Illustration: 1 Level in the revised pay structure: Level 4 Pay Band 5200-20200 2 Basic Pay in the revised pay structure: 28700 Grade pay 1800 1900 2000 2400 2800 3 Granted Promotion/ financial upgradation under MACPS in Level 5 Levels 1 2 3 4 5 1 18000 19900 21700 25500 29200 2 18500 20500 22400 26300 30100 4 Pay after giving one increment in Level-4: 29600 3 19100 21100 23100 27100 31000 4 19700 21700 23800 27900 31900 5 Pay in the upgraded Level-5: 30100 (either equal to or next higher to 29600 in Level-5) 5 20300 22400 24500 28700 32900 6 20900 23100 25200 29600 33900 7 21500 23800 26000 30500 34900 Clause-4 of letter dated 14.04.2018 ^^-;kstuk≶&foRr foHkkx] >kj[k.M] jkaph ds funsZ'kkuqlkj xzsM&3 ,oa mlls mPprj xszMksa esa Ánku dh x;h ÁksUurh dk ykHk ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls ns; gksxkA fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa Hkwry{kh ÁHkko ls ÁksUufr ns; ugha gSA ÁksUurh i'pkr osru fu/kkZj.k FR-22(i)(A)(2) ds vuqlkj fd;k tk;s vFkkZr ÁksUufr ds mijkar osru fu/kkZj.k esa dksbZ osru o`f) ns; ugha gksxkA** 8. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is seeking promotion to Grade-II and the letter dated 14.04.2018 is not applicable to Grade-II scale, rather, it is for Grade-III scale and as such, the said clause is not applicable in case of the present petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is seeking promotion to Grade-II and the letter dated 14.04.2018 is not applicable to Grade-II scale, rather, it is for Grade-III scale and as such, the said clause is not applicable in case of the present petitioner. The said contention of the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law, as the case of the petitioner is covered by the provisions enshrined under Rule 12(3) of the Bihar Taken-over Elementary School Teachers' Promotion Rules, 1993. For the sake of brevity, Rule 12(3) of 1993 Rules is quoted herein below: “12(3). In the following promotion, the benefit of rule 22(1)(a)(i) of the "the Fundamental Rules" shall not be admissible for fixation of pay, but pay in the pay-scale admissible after promotion shall be fixed at the same stage which was being paid before promotion: (a) Promotion to grade 2 (b) Promotion to grade 3 (c) Promotion to grade 5 (d) Promotion to grade 6 (e) Promotion to grade 8 from grade 7.” From a bare reading of the aforesaid Rule, it is apparent that the same is applicable for all grades i.e. Grades-2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 and as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived, as benefit of one increment is admissible in view of FR-22(1)(a)(i) whereas the case of the petitioner is guided by FR-22(1)(a)(ii) wherein no increment is granted on promotion from one grade to another as the same does not carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has elaborately dealt the said issue in case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 [: 2009(2) JLJR (SC)32]. The relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: “39. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has elaborately dealt the said issue in case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 [: 2009(2) JLJR (SC)32]. The relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: “39. Rule 22(1)(a)(1) provides that when a government servant is promoted or appointed to a higher post and the higher post he is promoted to carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued or rupees one hundred only whichever is more. 40. According to FR.22(1)(a)(2), the benefit of an additional increment, which is available to a government servant under FR.22 (1)(a)(1), would not be available to the government servant if the higher post he is promoted or appointed to does not carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him. 41. Even, according to FR.22-C, the additional increment was to be granted only in cases where the incumbent on promotion or appointment to a higher post has to discharge the duties and responsibilities of greater importance. Therefore, in cases where on promotion or appointment to the higher post no duties and responsibilities of greater importance - than those being discharged in the post held by the incumbent regularly prior to the promotion - were to be discharged by the government 11 servant, the pay fixation formula is provided for under FR.22(1)(a)(2) according to which benefit of additional increment is not to be extended at the time of fixation of pay on the promotional post. …………… …………… 48. Having regard to the provisions of Clause 13 of Resolution dated 18.12.1989, we hold that pay fixation on promotion of the assistant teachers of Nationalised Schools in the State of Bihar would be governed by FR.22(1)(a)(1) and FR.22(1)(a)(2), as the case may be, and not by FR.22-C, which was not even in existence on the day Resolution dated 18.12.1989 was issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar. Insofar as the appellants-teachers are concerned, since they were not discharging any duties and responsibilities of greater importance on their promotion to the higher post/grade, which is sine qua non for being eligible for an additional increment, they would be governed by FR.22(1)(a)(2) and not by FR.22(1)(a)(1). ……………. …………… 52. Ordinarily, we would have held that the amended provisions of FR.22-C would apply to the appellants - teachers w.e.f. 16.9.1989, i.e., the date from which the amended provisions of FR.22-C were notified. But, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that the State Government did not move this Court against the decision of the Division Bench whereby letters patent appeal preferred by the State Government challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that Resolution dated 20.2.1993 amending sub-clause (ii) of Clause 13 of the Resolution would apply to the class of teachers referred to in the said sub-clause prospectively i.e., w.e.f. the date of issuance of the Resolution dated 20.2.1993, was dismissed, we hold that FR.22(1)(a)(2) shall apply to the teachers of Secondary Schools also w.e.f. 20.2.1993.” 10. This Court has also considered all the aforesaid aspects and vide order dated 12.07.2018, passed in W.P.(S). No. 2072 of 2017 and analogous case, has reiterated the same view. 11. The another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Gunadhar Singh, who is similarly situated to that of the petitioner, is getting the pay-scale of Rs.50,500/- but the petitioner has been denied the same, is also not acceptable to this Court in view of averments made in the counter-affidavit, wherein the respondents have categorically stated that the said Gunadhar Singh was Senior Teacher, having appointed on 31.01.2001, whereas, the present petitioner was appointed on 14.02.2004 and hence, the petitioner cannot seek parity with Gunadhar Singh who is senior to him. 12. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 12. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) and also, in view of provisions enshrined under Rule 12(3) of the Bihar Taken-over Elementary School Teachers' Promotion Rules, 1993, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or any infirmity in fixation of the pay of the present petitioner in the basic pay of Rs.49,000/-, taking into consideration FR-22(I)(a)(2) and as such, no interference is warranted in the instant application. 13. As a sequitur of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.