JUDGMENT
Narayan Roy, J.
1. Heard counsel for he parties.
2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to give him monetary benefits of junior selection grade and senior selection grade after his superannuation, as disclosed in paragraph 1 of the writ application.
3. According to the case of the petitioner, he superannuated with effect from 31.1.1997. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner should have been granted senior selection grade scale of Rs. 3700-5000 with effect from 1.4.1994 and thereafter for super time scale of Rs. 4100/5300 with effect form 1.4.1987. It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the similarly situated persons, namely, Nagendra Nath Sahay and Vidya Bhushan Prasad Singh, were granted the benefits of selection grade scale and super time scale, as claimed by the petitioner, but the same was denied to him.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was working on a higher post equivalent to senior selection grade in his own pay scale. However, subsequently, he was granted promotion in senior selection grade with effect from 3.1,1985 when the vacancy occurred in the said grade. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has got regular promotion in junior selection grade and senior selection grade on regular basis and the claim of the petitioner now is wholly misconceived.
5. So far the question of discrimination, as alleged by the petitioner is concerned, it is stated in the counter affidavit that Nagendra Nath Sahay was granted promotion in senior selection and super time scale as he belonged to Bihar Agricultural Service category No. I (Agronomy) and only one post had fallen vacant for super time scale for category No. II and, therefore, the same was granted to Nagendra Nath Sahay.
6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Vidya Bhushan Prasad Singh was senior to the petitioner and, accordingly, he was promoted with effect from 1.5.1992 in super time scale pursuant to the direction of this Court issued in M.J.C. No. 34 of 1996, and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not at all admissible as the super time scale was given to the senior person in compliance of this Court’s order.
7. From the facts available on record, it appears that the petitioners claim is not sustainable in law and due promotion has already been granted to the petitioner in selection grade scales and his case has not been discriminated in view of the statement made in the counter affidavit.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, therefore, I do not find sufficient reasons to interfere in the matter.
9. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.