SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ganpati Trivedi at length.

(2.) It appears petitioner has two grievances, first with regard to the revised pay scale as a consequence of the 05th Pay Revision and the second with regard to grant of ACP. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, comparing the pay scale which he initially got upon employment through 34th Combined Competitive Examination to the pay scale which others are now receiving upon the revisions, there is a big disparity and that is in fact his first grievance. For example, all persons who, in 1989, were receiving pay of Rs. 100, upon the successive revisions, others are now receiving Rs. 1,500/- whereas petitioner is receiving only 1,200/-.

(3.) Having considered the matter, in my view, learned counsel for the State is correct. When this alleged disparity was noticed, upon petitioner's representation, the matter was referred to the Fitment Committee at the stage of the 05th Pay Revision. The Fitment Committee considered the matter and fixed the pay scale. The grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the pay scale revision in one branch has not been made available to him in the other branch of the Government. Learned counsel for the State is correct in pointing out that the 05th Pay Revision was not done by revising pay equivalence rather the entire exercise was redone on post to post basis. Therefore, it was not as if all those, who were in a particular pay scale irrespective of the cadre or the nature of service, there pays got revised in the same proportion. This aspect has been considered by the Fitment Committee. That being so, I see no reason to interfere in the recommendation of the Fitment Committee.