D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that although, she was originally appointed and posted in a Circle Cadre on a stipulated pay scale, but later, she was transferred to a Divisional Cadre which happens to be a distinct cadre altogether and by such transfer, she has been posted as Lower Division Clerk and has been allowed to suffer stagnation, whereas the persons who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner including one Lakshman Jha (respondent no. 5), has been promoted to post of Office Superintendent in the Circle Division Cadre in the same pay scale in which the petitioner was initially appointed and was allowed to continue in the aforesaid cadre and has also been granted further promotion, whereas, the petitioner has been denied such promotion totally.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner would refer to the several representations as also to the letter (Annexure-6) issued by the Principal Chief Conservation of Forest, Bihar who had acknowledge the fact that the petitioner was originally appointed in the Circle Cadre and that the Divisional Cadre to which she was transferred, constitutes altogether different cadre and such transfer should not have been made and he has also conceded to the petitioner's claim that she was entitled to the pay scale of the clerks appointed in the Circle Cadre.;