- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for getting pay -scale of the post of Administrative Officer, which is promotional post, as per the allegation levelled by the present petitioner.
(2.) IT is vehemently submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Circle Assistant thereafter, he was appointed on the post of Administrative Officer dated 17th January, 1986 (Annexure -1 to the memo of the present petition) thereafter, he was working, since then on the said post Respondents are not paying the pay -scale of the post of Administrative Officer which is 1000 -1820 and therefore, the present petition is instituted. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision taken by the committee dated 23rd of March, 1988, which is Annexure -14 to the memo of the petition whereby as per the paragraph -5 thereof it is submitted that the petitioner is confirmed on the post of Administrative Officer and therefore, the respondent has to pay, a pay -scale of the promotional post of Administrative Officer. Counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court to Annexure -17 of the memo of the present petition and submitted that initially petitioner had filed a petition bearing C. W. J. C. No. 5983 of 2000 before the Patna High Court and ultimately the petition was disposed of with liberty to raise the claim before this Court and, therefore, present petition has been instituted. I have heard counsel for the respondents who submitted in the counter affidavit filed that petitioner was never appointed on the post of Administrative Officer even as per the Annexure -1 to the memo of the present petition. Petitioner was appointed as Office Superintendent and not on the post of Administrative Officer and these two posts i.e. Administrative Officer and Office Superintendent are two distinct and different posts and their pay -scales are also different and distinct. Petitioner was working as Circle Assistant, thereafter, as per order dated of June, 1986(Annexure -1), petitioner was given temporarily promotion on the post of Office Superintendent as post of Administrative Officer was vacant, but, never the post of Administrative Officer was given to the present petitioner and, therefore, there is no question to give any pay -scale of the promotional post of Administrative Officer to the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the pay -scale of post of Administrative Officer. Counsel for the respondents also submitted that vide order at Annexure -14 to the memo of the present petition the petitioner was never confirmed by the committee on the post of Administrative Officer. On the contrary, looking to the Annexure -14, last two lines of paragraph -5 thereof, a decision was to be taken by bureau of enterprise, for the promotion on the post of Administrative Officer. Thus, the petitioner was never promoted on post of Administrative Officer and much less he was confirmed on the post of Administrative Officer and, therefore, petitioner is not entitle for pay scale for the post of Administrative Officer.
(3.) HAVING heard the counsel for the both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly, for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Circle Assistant. By order at Annexure -1, to the memo of the present petition, dated 25.06.1986, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Office Superintendent. It appears that because of one word used as Administrative Officer the whole confusion created in the mind of the petitioner. Infact vide order at Annexure -1 to the memo of the present petition, the respondent stated that, as the post of Administrative Officer was vacant, the petitioner was temporarily promoted to the post of Office Superintendent on the pay scale of 850 -30 -1270 -1360. It is as simple and as plain as this: As, post "A  (Administrative Officer) was vacant, petitioner was appointed on post "B  (Office Superintendent having pay -scale of 850 -30 -1270 -1360). Thus, never, vide Annexure -1 to the memo of the present petition, the higher post of Administrator Officer was not given to the present petitioner. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the pay -scale for Administrative Officer is 1000 -1820. Thus, the post of Administrative Officer, is further higher Post, to the Office Superintendent post, looking to the higher pay scale. (ii) Thus, the petitioner was never appointed on the post of Administrative Officer as per order at Annexure -1. This is further fortified by perusing Annexure -14 which is a decision taken by the committee dated 23rd March 1988. It has been mentioned, specifically in paragraph -5, thereof, that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Office Superintendent, but, not on the post of Administrative Officer. On the contrary, looking to the last two line of paragraph -5, of Annexure -14, it appears that decision for promotion on the post of Administrative Officer, will be taken by the Bureau Enterprises. Thus, if the petitioner would have been promoted, exactly on the post of Administrative Officer, there would have been no necessity, of the last two line of paragraph -5 in Annexure 14. (iii) It appears that the petitioner, now, reverted to the post of Circle Assistant, because he was temporarily on the post of Office Superintendent. Now petitioner has retired on February, 2007. Thus, never the petitioner was appointed, on the post of Administrative Officer, which is much higher post, even above then the post of Office Superintendent. Vide order at Annexure -1 to the memo of the present petition, petitioner was temporarily promoted on the post of Office Superintendent, which is also withdrawn, subsequently and, therefore, a writ petition bearing W. P. S. No. 6537 of 2007 was already instituted and pending before this Court, but, that matter involves a question only of withdrawal of the temporarily promotion of the present petitioner from the post of Circle Assistant to Office Superintendent. This dispute (viz. withdrawal of temporarily promotion) has nothing to do with the post of Administrative Officer. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid may also be heard with this matter is not accepted by this Court as issues involved in that matter and in present writ petition, are different and distinct. (iv) Thus, the petitioner was never appointed on the post of Administrative Officer and therefore, there is no question of granting any pay -scale to the petitioner for that post, whatever arises. ;