An employee who is asked by the employer to work against a post on certain terms, the employee concerned by reason of the un-equal bargaining position cannot object to the terms and conditions of service.

A. K. Ganguly, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by Dr. Sachita kumar Sinha with a prayer for payment of bis salary with all admissible allowances and retirement benefits for the post of Additional Director of secondary Education with effect from 6.8.1988 till 9.5.1990 and also for the post of Director (Secondary Education) Bihar, Patna with effect from 10.5.1990 till 31.12.1991, the date of retirement of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an Officer of Class I Bihar education Services since 1976 and while he was posted as Deputy Director of Education in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000 he was appointed to the post of Additional Director of Secondary Education to which post the petitioner worked from 6 8 1988 to 9 5.1990 Thereafter by another notification dated 10.5.1990 the petitioner was asked to discharge the duties of the Director (Secondary Education) in addition to his own work of Additional Director of Secondary Education (Headquarters ). The order by which the petitioner was so appointed to the posts of Additional Director of Secondary Education and Director (Secondary Education) are contained in Annexures 4 and 5 of the writ petition.

3. The petitioners grievance is that he has an up-blemished service career and he worked in the said post of Additional Director of Secondary education (Headquarters) and Director, Secondary Education but he has been denied the pay attached to the aforesaid two posts. For the post of additional Director of Secondary Education (Headquarters) the sanctioned scale of pay is Rs.4500-5700 as revised by the 5th Pay Revision Committee with effect from 1.1.1986 and the post of Director, Secondary Education carries the scale of pay of Rs.5100-6300 as per the aforesaid revision. The petitioner has retired on 31.12.1991 but the Account General, Bihar, did not sanction his pension in the higher scale of pay but sanctioned his full pension in the lower scale of Rs.3000-4500 even though the petitioner worked as the Director, Secondary Education as would appear from the pension payment order The petitioners further case is that his services were not only un-blemished but the said services were appreciated from time to time by R. K. Shrivastava, Commissoner, Human Resources Development department, Bihar, Patna, as would appear from Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the petitioner has satisfactorily, without any complaint from any quarter, discharged the duties of the posts of Additional Director of Secondary Education (Headquarters) and Director of Secondary Education, there is no reason to deny him the pay attached to the said post. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rules 58 and 103 of the Bihar Service Code and on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt P. Grover V/s. State of Haryana and others reported in 1963 (2)SLR, page 735 which is equivalent to 1983 (2) SCC page 291

5. Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents, strenuously resisted the said claim of the petitioner by raising various objections. Her objections are three-fold, namely, (i) that the petitioner Was, at no point of time, promoted to those poses, (ii) the relevant orders at annexures 4 and 5 of the writ-petition would show that the petitioner was posted against the post of Additional Director of Secondary Education (Headquarters) Patna in his own scale of pay until further orders and then again he was asked to take over charge of the post of director (Secondary, Education ). Bihar, Patna, in addition to his original work of Additional Director of Secondary Education (Headquarters), Patna and (iii) the petitioner agreed to work against those posts on those terms, namely, on his own scale of pay. Further contention of the learned counsel for the State is that the petitioner previously also came to this Court and filed a writ petition complaining of