IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.8625 of 2006
MD.RASHEED ANSARI, SON OF LATE AZIMUDDIN ANSARI,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SARAIYA KHAJURI, P.S. NABI
NAGAR, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD.
...................................................................PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE CIVIL SURGEON, AURANGABAD.
3. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF
BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
5. JANARDAN PRASAD, PHARMASIST AT PRESENT POSTED
AT RAJKIYA AUSDHALAY, JAMHORE, P.S. JAMHORE,
DISTRICT-AURANGABAD.
........................................................RESPONDENTS.
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate.
For the State : M/s. Madhuresh Prasad, G.P. XII and
Prabhat Ranjan, AC to G.P. XII.
———–
2. 11.2.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed vide
Annexure-‘1’ as a Pharmacist in the pay-scale of Rs.680-15-
690. However, subsequently, his pay-scale had been reduced
to Rs.535-765 in the year 1987 and thereafter every
replacement scale etc. had been given in the aforesaid lower
scale. Petitioner’s claim is that he is entitled for the
2
replacement pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000 with effect from
12.2.1982 and Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 9.8.1999. It is
also claimed by the petitioner that Respondent No.5, who is
on similar footing to that of the petitioner, is being given
higher pay-scale.
Ordinarily, this Court would not have gone to
examine this matter as even if it is accepted that according
to the petitioner, his pay-scale has been lowered down, the
same was allegedly done in the year 1987 itself, which was
not challenged by the petitioner for long time. However,
since the petitioner claims that he had filed a representation
before the Respondent No.2, the Civil Surgeon, Aurangabad
and that has not been disposed of by the concerned, let the
petitioner file a fresh representation before the Respondent
No.3, the Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar,
Patna. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner
before the Respondent No.3 within one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be disposed
of by the Respondent No.3 within three months on its own
merit in accordance with law.
This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion
3
with regard to the merit of the case.
( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)
P.S.