JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 4963 of 2020 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the respondents for substitution of respondent no. 4-Vyas Deo Pandey @ Vyas Dev Pandey who is stated to have died on 03.07.2019 during pendency of the instant appeal. 3. From perusal of record, it appears for the self-same prayer, earlier I.A. No. 4889 of 2020 was filed by the respondents, which was allowed vide order 21.09.2020 and the name of respondent no. 4-Vyas Deo Pandey @ Vyas Dev Pandey was directed to be expunged from the array of respondents and his heirs and legal representatives, as described in paragraph 6 of the substitution petition, were directed to be substituted in his place. 4. In compliance thereof, name of respondent no. 4 has been expunged and in his place his legal heirs have been substituted, as such the present Interlocutory Application has become infructuous. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4963 of 2020 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 5802 of 2020 6. This Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the appellants-State seeking leave of this Court to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record certain documents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants-State submitted that certain resolutions, letters and orders related to the pay-scales, revised pay-scales, time bound promotion and Assured Career Progression of the respondents-writ petitioners are required to be brought on record for better appreciation of the case at hand as the same are corresponding rules, regulations related to the service condition of the respondents-writ petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners though have filed reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents-appellants but does not raised serious objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the respondents-appellants. 9. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and to meet the ends of justice, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants-State, annexing therewith certain documents, is permitted to be part of memo of appeal. 10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5802 of 2020 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 622 of 2018 11. 10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5802 of 2020 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 622 of 2018 11. This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order/judgment dated 14.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2191 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the writ Court while allowing the writ petition quashed the decision of the authority, as contained in Memo No. 297 dated 01.04.2005, pertaining to wrong fixation of pay-scale and grant of benefits of up-gradation in pay-scale by way of Assured Career Progression (in short ‘ACP’) Scheme on the reduced pay-scale; and respondents-authorities were directed to pass appropriate order for placing the writ petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and accordingly grant Time Bound Promotion/Assured Career Progression within a stipulated period of time. 12. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: Writ petitioners were appointed as Copying Clerk/Remunerative Nakal Navis/Pratilipik Lipik under the respondents-State. The services of the writ petitioner nos.1 to 3 were absorbed w.e.f. 08.07.1980 vide Memo No. 1381 dated 08.07.1980, whereby it was resolved that after taking over the services of the writ petitioners they will be governed by the same service condition as those of Class III employees of the State Government whereas writ petitioner no. 4 was appointed as Copying Clerk under Deoghar Collectorate on 03.05.1982 i.e. after the State government had taken over the services of the Copying Clerk vide Memo No. 1381 dated 08.07.1980 and were granted pay-scale of Rs. 535-765 under 4th Pay Revision. Thereafter, all the writ petitioners were granted pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540 under 5th Pay Revision, however, the Government in order to remove/rectify certain anomalies in the Pay Revision constituted a Pay Anomaly Removal Committee, which gave its report/recommendation for up-gradation of the pay-scale of the writ petitioner from Rs. 975-1540 to Rs. 1200-1800, as alleged by the writ petitioners, but the same was not extended to them. It is the case of the writ petitioners that though the writ petitioners were entitled to get higher pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800 under 5th Pay Revision in the light of recommendation of Pay Anomaly Removal Committee, but they were wrongly given pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900 under 6th pay revision, being replacement of pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540, w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the respondent no. 1200-1800 under 5th Pay Revision in the light of recommendation of Pay Anomaly Removal Committee, but they were wrongly given pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900 under 6th pay revision, being replacement of pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540, w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the respondent no. 2 further reduced the pay-scale of the writ petitioners from 3200-4900 to 3050 to 4590, while granting benefits under Assured Career Progression Scheme vide Memo No. 297 dated 01.04.2005. It is further case of the writ petitioners that respondents-authorities had not granted Time Bound Promotions to the writ petitioners from the date of their entitlement rather from the later date and further wrongly fixed their pay-scales in spite of replacement of their pay-scale from 975-1540 to 1200-1800 by the Pay Revision Anomaly Removal Committee. Being aggrieved by the decision of the authorities of wrong fixation of pay-scale, the writ petitioners submitted representation before the respondents-authorities but having no effect, they filed writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The claim the writ petitioners before the writ Court was that they are entitled to get pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 under 6th pay revision in the light of recommendation of the Pay Revision Anomaly Removal Committee. It was further submitted that in the light of recommendation of Pay Revision Anomaly Removal Committee, the writ petitioners were entitled to get pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800 w.e.f. 01.03.1989, being upgraded 5th pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540 granted under 5th pay revision. The respondents-State appeared and contested the case by filing counter affidavit taking inter alia the plea that the writ petitioners were working on remuneration basis before 08.07.1980 and prior to that they were not the Government servant. They were declared Government servant vide Memo No. 1381 dated 08.07.1980 of Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar and after 08.07.1980 they were taken under regular government establishment and pursuant thereto they were made entitled to get all the benefits granted to the Government employees. It has further been submitted that in the light of Sankalp as contained Memo No. 2714 dated 21.09.2007, the pay of the writ petitioners were revised and they were given all benefits to which they were entitled to. It has further been submitted that in the light of Sankalp as contained Memo No. 2714 dated 21.09.2007, the pay of the writ petitioners were revised and they were given all benefits to which they were entitled to. It was further averred that services of the writ petitioners is counted from 08.07.1980, the date when they were taken under regular Government establishment and prior to the said period they were working as commission holder employee and not as regular Government employee, as such the claim of the writ petitioners to treat them regular government employee before 08.07.1980 is against the decision of the Government as contained in Memo No. 1381 dated 08.07.1980. The writ Court, after taking into consideration the factual aspect and submission advanced on behalf of parties allowed the writ petition by holding the writ petitioners entitle to get pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and directed the State-authorities to pass appropriate order for grant of benefit under Time Bound Promotion/Assured Career Progression in accordance with law, which is the subject matter of instant intra-court appeal. 13. Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. S.C. III, appearing for the appellants-State has submitted that there is no illegality in the pay-scale of the writ petitioners as they were getting the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540 i.e. the pay-scale attached to the post of Remunerative Copyist, which was subsequently revised by pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900/-, therefore, it is not a case of anomaly occurred in the pay-scale, but the learned Single Judge without appreciating these aspects of the matter has directed to fix the pay-scale of the writ petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-(pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800), considering the writ petitioners to be the holder of post of Lower Division Clerk (in short ‘LDC’) but actually the writ petitioners were holders of the post of Remunerative Copyist. 14. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners has submitted by referring to Annexure 1 to the writ petition that vide Memo No. 1381 dated 08.07.1980, the writ petitioners were directed to be absorbed under regular establishment by granting them the pay-scale at par with the LDC working under Muffasil Office in the pay-scale of Rs. 220-315, therefore, whatever pay-scale which was fixed for the cadre of Lower Division Clerk, the writ petitioners are entitled to and by virtue of same, the replacement scale of Rs. 220-315 will be Rs. 220-315, therefore, whatever pay-scale which was fixed for the cadre of Lower Division Clerk, the writ petitioners are entitled to and by virtue of same, the replacement scale of Rs. 220-315 will be Rs. 1200-1800/-, corresponding to Rs. 4000-6000/-w.e.f. 01.01.1996, which the learned Single Judge has directed to extend to the writ petitioners, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity. 15. In response to such submission, Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. S.C. III, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State, drawing attention of this Court towards Annexure A/4 to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 07.11.2020 has submitted that by virtue of Resolution No. 660 dated 08.02.1999, by which recommendation of 4th pay revision was extended, the writ petitioners were entitled to get the existing pay-scale i.e. the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540 and since according to her, the writ petitioners, vide Memo No. 1381 dated 08.07.1980 were granted pay-scale attached to the post of LDC working in the Muffasil office, they were rightly granted pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540. It has further been submitted that it would be evident from Memo No. 1381 dated 08.07.1980 that the writ petitioners were working as Typists and Copyists and granted pay-scale attached to LDC working in Muffasil Office, therefore, according to her they were treated to be working as Copyist and typist and only pay-scale attached to the post LDC working in Muffasil Office was made admissible to them i.e. in the pay-scale of Rs. 220-315 but that does not mean that for all time they would be entitled to get the pay-scale of LDC rather as per resolution dated 08.02.1999, which contains the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540, the pay-scale of Remunerative Clerk will be admissible to them. According to her, the pay-scale which the writ petitioners were getting on the basis of Resolution dated 08.02.1999 has been taken care of in Resolution No. 3435 dated 08.06.1999 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, wherein also existing pay-scale for the post of Remunerative Copyist at serial no. 6(i) of the Schedule 1 has been mentioned as 975-1540/-and revised pay-scale has been mentioned as Rs. 6(i) of the Schedule 1 has been mentioned as 975-1540/-and revised pay-scale has been mentioned as Rs. 3050-4590 and since Resolution dated 08.06.1999 has taken care of Resolution dated 08.02.1999, and further Resolution dated 08.06.1999 being subsequent to the Resolution dated 08.02.1999, the writ petitioners cannot base his claim on the basis of the Resolution dated 08.02.1999 and further according to her Resolution dated 08.06.1999 has never been assailed by the writ petitioner, hence they now cannot claim pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800 (pre-revised pay–scale of Rs. 4000-6000). According to learned counsel, the learned Single Judge without appreciating these aspects of the matter has passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that as per the pleadings made in the writ petition and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the writ petitioners, as recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the whole case of the writ petitioners is based upon the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee whereby the writ petitioners have claimed that their pay-scale was upgraded to the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800 but the same is not related with the pay-scale of the writ petitioners, therefore, the impugned order suffers from error. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The admitted facts herein are that the writ petitioners, who were working as Typists and Copyists on remuneration basis, were taken over by the Government vide Resolution as contained in Memo No. 1381 dated 08.07.1980, whereby it was decided to declare the writ petitioners and other similarly situated persons as Government Servant entitling them all service condition as of Class III employees of the State Government and further they were made entitled to get the pay-scale of Rs.220-315 similar to the pay-scale of LDC working in Muffasil office. The writ petitioners had accepted the aforesaid offer of appointment and reported to duty on the pay-scale of Rs. 220-315, which by virtue of recommendation of 4th pay commission was revised in the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540/-and thereafter under 5th pay revision, his pay-scale was revised to the pay-scale of Rs. 3050 – 4590 and after rectification vide Memo No. 2714 dated 21.09.2007 of Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, it was enhanced to the pay-scale Rs. 220-315, which by virtue of recommendation of 4th pay commission was revised in the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540/-and thereafter under 5th pay revision, his pay-scale was revised to the pay-scale of Rs. 3050 – 4590 and after rectification vide Memo No. 2714 dated 21.09.2007 of Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, it was enhanced to the pay-scale Rs. 3200-4900. 17. It was the specific case of the writ petitioner before the writ Court that in order to remove certain anomaly in the pay fixation of some cadre of employees, a Pay Anomaly Committee was constituted which gave its recommendation, which accepted vide Resolution No. 6932 dated 18.12.1995 whereby the pay-scale of the writ petitioner was enhanced from Rs. 975-1540 to Rs. 1200-1800. In this regard, this Court during course of hearing vide order dated 16.06.2020 made a specific query as to whether the recommendation of Pay Anomaly Removal Committee was accepted and implemented by the State or not. Relevant portion of order dated 16.06.2020 is reproduced herein below: “Let the State-appellants answer the query raised by this Court as to whether the recommendation of Pay Anomaly Removal Committee was accepted and implemented by the State or not. The Writ Court has observed in para-2 of the impugned judgment that the recommendation of Pay Anomaly Removal Committee was not implemented and subsequently the pay was wrongly fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900/-. In such a situation, in our view the State would have to explain as to why the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee Report was not accepted or whether it was accepted for some other employees and claim of writ petitioners was rejected or the same was not accepted in toto. As prayed on behalf of the State, put up on 07.07.2020.” In compliance thereto, the appellants-State filed supplementary affidavit dated 09.07.2020, in which, at paragraph 5 it has specifically been stated that “....the recommendation in relation to remunerative copyist (as contained in annexure -2) was never implemented by the State Government. In fact, the State allowed the pay-scale of 3200-4900 to Remunerative Copyist vide Memo No. 2714 dated 21.09.2007. ...”. At paragraph 6 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been reiterated that “the recommendation of Pay Anomaly Committee was not accepted by the State Government with respect to remunerative copyist...”. In fact, the State allowed the pay-scale of 3200-4900 to Remunerative Copyist vide Memo No. 2714 dated 21.09.2007. ...”. At paragraph 6 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been reiterated that “the recommendation of Pay Anomaly Committee was not accepted by the State Government with respect to remunerative copyist...”. In view of the specific reply made by the appellants-State in the supplementary affidavit, which has not properly been discarded either by filing reply to supplementary affidavit or making specific submission in this regard and further on perusal of Resolution No. 6932 dated 18.12.1995, it appears that it is not related with the writ petitioners. 18. The appellants-State has placed reliance on Resolution no. 3435 dated 08.06.1999 wherein it has been stated that the State Government had notified the revised pay-scales of the employee vide Finance Department’s Resolution No. 660 dated 08.02.1999, however, the matter of the pay-scale of certain categories of employees was sent back to the Fitment Committee for re-consideration. The Fitment Committee reviewed the matter and suggested no change in the pay-scales already recommended. Further in the said Resolution, the existing pay-scale of the remunerative Copyist falling at serial no. 6(1) at Schedule 1 has been shown to be 975-1540 and revised pay-scale has been shown to be Rs. 3050-4590/-. However, on grievance being raised by some set of employees regarding their pay-scale, a Fitment Appellate Committee was constituted, who after consideration submitted its report/recommendation which was implemented by the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand vide Resolution no. 2714 dated 21.09.2007, wherein for the post of Remunerative Copyists of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department as mentioned at serial no. 51, in which cadre the writ petitioners fall, pay-scale has been enhanced from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 3200-4900. From perusal of Memo No. 640 dated 11.09.2009, Annexure SA/A7 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellants, it further appears that benefits of ACPs have been extended to the writ petitioners, which they have accepted and now they have already retired from services. 19. From the pleadings made in the writ petition as well as before this Court, it appears that the writ petitioners have never challenged the recommendation of Fitment Appellate Committee, basing upon which his pay has been fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900 and they were extended benefits under ACP Scheme. 20. 19. From the pleadings made in the writ petition as well as before this Court, it appears that the writ petitioners have never challenged the recommendation of Fitment Appellate Committee, basing upon which his pay has been fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900 and they were extended benefits under ACP Scheme. 20. Now coming to the question which has been raised by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that they are entitled to pay-scale at par with the LDC working under the establishment of the Muffasil Office since as per Memo No. 1381 dated 08.07.1980, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, they were granted pay-scale of Rs. 220-315 at par with the LDC working in the Muffasil Office and, therefore, according to writ petitioners they are entitled to get pay-scale which is admissible to the LDC working under Muffasil Office. We find no substance in his argument as the decision of the State Government as contained in Memo dated 1381 dated 08.07.1980 does not reflect that the writ petitioners have ever been absorbed under the establishment of the Muffasil Office rather they were granted pay-scale attached to the post of LDC working under the Muffasil Office. Further, it is evident that such decision was taken to treat the writ petitioners and similarly situated persons as Class III employee and pay-scale admissible to them was of the LDC working in Muffasil Office. There cannot be any dispute that if government is absorbing the services of one or the other employees in any of the establishments there must be a specific decision to that effect. If an employee is given pay-scale at par with employees working under a particular establishment it does not mean that such employee would be treated to be the employee of the said establishment as is being claimed by the writ petitioners. Since merely because pay-scale of Rs. 220-315, which is admissible to the LDC working under Muffasil Office was given to the writ petitioners, they would not be treated to be an employee of the Mufassil Office entitling them to get the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800 in place of Rs. 975-1540. Since merely because pay-scale of Rs. 220-315, which is admissible to the LDC working under Muffasil Office was given to the writ petitioners, they would not be treated to be an employee of the Mufassil Office entitling them to get the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800 in place of Rs. 975-1540. Further, on plain reading of the decision of the State Government as contained in Memo No. 1381 dated 08.07.1980, it appears that since there is no stipulation of absorbing the services of the writ petitioner in the Muffasil Office, the writ petitioner cannot be held entitled to get the pay-scale attached to the post of LDC of the Muffasil office in next pay-revision rather they would be entitled to get the pay-scale of Remunerative Copyist, the post on which they were working. 21. The writ petitioners have further claimed that once the pay-scale of Rs. 220-315 was extended to them there cannot be reduction in the pay-scale on the basis of acceptance of recommendation of 5th pay revision with effect from 01.01.1996. But the question is that when the recommendation of 5th pay commission has come and further to rectify the anomaly in the pay-scale, a Pay Anomaly Removal Committee was constituted which submitted its recommendation and the said recommendation has never been accepted by the State Government, so far the pay-scale of the writ petitioners is concerned and further the Fitment Appellate Committee revised the pay-scale of the writ from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 3200-4900, which was never questioned by the writ petitioners, can the Writ Court interfere with the impugned decision of the State-authorities. It is admitted fact as would be evident from impugned order that non-acceptance of the recommendation of Pay Anomaly Removal Committee and recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee, which was accepted by the State vide Sankalp dated 21.09.2007, have never been challenged by the writ petitioners. 22. The question further would be that when there is conscious decision of the State Government not accepting the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee, so far the pay-scale of these writ petitioners are concerned, and further the Fitment Appellate Committee recommendation for extending the pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900 to the writ petitioners, having not been questioned before any appropriate forum, the writ petitioners can claim the pay-scale contrary to the said decisions of the State. 3200-4900 to the writ petitioners, having not been questioned before any appropriate forum, the writ petitioners can claim the pay-scale contrary to the said decisions of the State. It is settled position of law that in the matter of fixation of pay-scale the decision of expert bodies like the Pay Commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review obviously because pay fixation is an exercise requiring going into various aspects of the posts held in various services and nature of the duties of the employees. Reference in this regard be made to the case rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and Ors vs. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association [ (2003) 6 SCC 250 , wherein at paragraph 11 it has been held that there can be no denial of the legal position that decision of expert bodies like the Pay Commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review obviously because pay fixation is an exercise requiring going into various aspects of the posts held in various services and nature of the duties of the employees. 23. This Court has proceeded on the premise of the settled legal position, as referred above and taking into consideration the admitted fact that the writ petitioners have neither questioned the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee nor the recommendation made by Fitment Appellate Committee, they cannot claim such benefit by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of power of judicial review. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found therefrom that although learned Single Judge has made reference in the impugned order about recommendation of Pay Anomaly Removal Committee by observing that Pay Anomaly Removal Committee submitted its recommendation for absorption of the pay of the writ petitioners from the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540 to the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800 but the recommendation of the pay anomaly removal committee was not implemented, even then the learned Single Judge, without giving thoughtful consideration to the facts narrated above, proceeded in wrong direction and quashed the impugned decisions and directed the respondents-State to pass appropriate order to place the writ petitioners in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and accordingly grant Time Bound Promotion/ACP, which according to us cannot be said to be justified on the basis of discussions, made herein above. 24. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and accordingly grant Time Bound Promotion/ACP, which according to us cannot be said to be justified on the basis of discussions, made herein above. 24. We, on the basis of entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law referred herein above, are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from infirmity and is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. 25. Accordingly, the present intra-court appeal is allowed. 26. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. Ravi Ranjan, J.- I agree