IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7790 of 2007 Smt.Kusum Sinha, widow of late B.P.Sinha, resident of Mohalla Gaulakshami, Road No.10B, Santoshi Mata Path, P.O. & P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director Education Primary Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director, Primary, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas, P.O. & P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas 5. The Headmaster, Balika Madhya Vidhyalaya Dalmianagar, P.O. & P.S. Dehri, District Rohtas 6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 12.10.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application, for payment of her salary for the period May, 1993 to April, 1995, is based on a presumption that her age of retirement was 60 years and not 58 years and that she was wrongly denied the salary of the aforesaid period though she was entitled to continue in service attaining the age of 60 years and in fact claims to have also worked upto the age of 60 years. Counsel for the State has got no clear answer on the issues raised in this writ application, inasmuch as there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents even in a space of a period of 4½ years. In the considered opinion of this Court the writ application can be disposed of by directing the Director, Primary education to look into the whole aspect as to whether the petitioner’s service condition had contained a clause of her continuance in service upto the age of 60 years or 58 years. The 2 reliance placed by the petitioner on a circular issued by the State Government relating to Nationalized Primary Schools may not be a correct answer to the issue involved in this writ application, inasmuch as it has to be found out as to whether the appointment of the petitioner was made initially as a teacher in a Basic School or other Government School whose age of retirement even had remained unaltered and in fact limited to 58 years as in the year 1990. It is only in the case of teachers of Nationalized Primary Schools of the year 1976 that the circular in question seems to extend the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years but then even counsel for the petitioner has not annexed any document to show the service history of the petitioner or that the petitioner was actually appointed as a teacher in nationalised primary school. In such a situation the facts have to be re-assessed and the Director, Primary Education who being the Head of the Department can definitely do so with the help of the official records relating to service details of the petitioner and the relevant statutes relating to service condition of the petitioner. This application is, accordingly, disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Director, Primary Education to file a self contained representation enclosing all her evidence in support of her claim of payment of salary for the period in question and the Director, Primary Education is expected to dispose of the said representation with a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order which has to be filed alongwith a representation of the petitioner. 3 It goes without saying that if the age of superannuation of the petitioner would be held to be 60 years and that she had also admittedly worked in the school in question till attaining her age of 60 years, she would be entitled to receive payment of her salary for the period in question immediately after an order to this effect is passed by the Director, Primary Education. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/