R.K. Merathia, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Mr. P.K. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioners case has not been properly considered while rejecting his claim by the impugned order dated 4.1.1997. Regarding ground No. (a) of rejection, he submitted that petitioner and Deobrat Mahto both were appointed initially as Assistant. Both of them were also designated as Mining Mate and sent for training and they worked as Laboratory Incharge after the training and not Mining Mate but it wrongly stated that petitioner has been working as Mining Mate. Regarding ground No. (b) he submitted that petitioner is claiming designation and pay scale of Chemist and therefore, there is no use of saying that the Corporation has never

designated the petitioner as Chemist. Moreover, this Court found in the earlier writ petition being CWJC No. 1459 of 1990 (R) that undisputedly petitioner was working as Laboratory Incharge. Regarding ground No. (c) he submitted that Amarnath Singh and Daya Shankar Singh were appointed on ad hoc basis as Chemist for six months and they worked under the petitioner. Petitioner is claiming pay scale and designation of Chemist as it was given to Deobra