JUDGMENT : P.B. BAJANTHRI, J. In L.P.A. No. 973 of 2016. In this L.P.A., learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary submitted on instruction that some of the respondents have died during pendency of the L.P.A., therefore, necessary substitution application is required to be filed. 2. In the result, L.P.A. No. 973/2016 is de-linked with other matters and respondents’ counsel is permitted to file interlocutory application within four weeks in bringing the legal heirs of the concerned deceased respondents. 3. Matter is being adjourned from time to time for more than thirty times. On 18.01.2023 the following order was passed. “The matter is heard at length. Learned Respondent’s counsel could not apprise this Court that there is a discrimination in so far as the extending up-gradation pay on par with posts of Typist, Typist-cum-Clerk to such of those persons who are holding the post of Steno-typist. In this regard, he is hereby directed to apprise this Court on the next date of hearing that the posts of Typist, Typist-cum-Clerk and Steno-typist are equivalent cadre, so as to contend that there is a discrimination in the policy of the Agriculture University/State Government in sofar as the extending up-gradation of pay. The Apex Court recently in the case of The Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rajib Khan and Ors. vide judgment dated 16th January, 2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No. 8083 of 2022) held that even in a single cadre there could be a different pay-scale and it is further held that it is a policy decision of the respective authority. It is also to be noted that the Apex Court in the cases of P.U. Joshi and Ors. Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors., reported in, (2003) 2 SCC 632 and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Pushpa Rani and Ors. reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242 , elaborately discussed so as to service condition of an employee stipulated by the competent authority could not be interfered by the Tribunals/Courts. Learned counsel for the Respondents is hereby directed to take note of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and make his submission. Re-list these matters on 24.01.2023.” 4. Today learned counsel for the respondents is seeking time and the same is hereby rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents is hereby directed to take note of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and make his submission. Re-list these matters on 24.01.2023.” 4. Today learned counsel for the respondents is seeking time and the same is hereby rejected. 5. Core issue involved in the present lis is whether respondents are entitled to have the benefit of upgradation of pay-scale in the light of decision of the Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar dated 24.06.1982 or not? Agenda Item No. V(a) relates to:- “Upgradation of pay-scale of the ministerial staff working in the constituent units of the Rajendra Agriculture, University, Bihar. It is necessary to reproduce proceedings dated 24.06.1982 para 2 and 7 suffice that the respondents are not entitled to have any benefit of upgradation of pay scale. In other words, there is no reference to the post of Steno-Typist on the other hand, it relates to only Clerks and Head-clerks. Further, the resolution for upgradation would be effective from 01.03.1982. It is reliably learnt that some of the respondents who were appointment subsequent to 01.03.1982, even on this issue respondents are not entitled. In the result, the learned single judge has committed glaring error in allowing the writ-petitions.” 6. Claiming any pay parity with similarly situated persons there are number of events were required to be taken note of like date of joining, for which post and other service conditions insofar as the post held by respective parties. On the last occasion we have taken note of Apex Court decisions like The Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rajib Khan and Ors., P.U. Joshi and Ors. Vs. Accountant General, Ahemdabad and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Pushpa Rani and ors. Today, learned counsel for the State cited S.C. Chandra and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 279 (Para 27). 7. Reading of aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court it is crystal clear that fixation of pay and other service conditions including upgradation of pay-scale is a policy decision. In the present case, petitioner State has taken a decision and passed a resolution that upgradation of pay-scale is extended to Clerks and Head-clerks. There is no resolution or decision of the State to extend upgradation of pay-scale in so far as Steno-Typist is concerned. In the present case, petitioner State has taken a decision and passed a resolution that upgradation of pay-scale is extended to Clerks and Head-clerks. There is no resolution or decision of the State to extend upgradation of pay-scale in so far as Steno-Typist is concerned. Therefore, the respondents have no statutory right to claim upgradation of pay-scale on par with such of those Clerks or Head-clerks, since they form separate class of persons and a class discrimination is permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner State has made out a prima-facie case so as to interfere with the order of the learned single judge dated 07.04.2015 passed in C.J.W.C. No. 15661 of 2014 and it is set aside. If any of the respondents are holding of the posts of clerk or Head Clerk, in that event concerned respondent is hereby directed to extend the aforementioned policy of upgradation of pay-scale. 8. Hence, the L.P.As stand allowed.