IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.181 of 2003 BALRUP, son of late Jang Bahadur Singh, resident of Lohianagar, near Jagipur Pump House Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary (Primary Education) Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna 3. The Treasury Officer, Patna 4. The Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Rabindra Madhya Vidyalaya, Sri Krishna Nagar, Patna … Respondents ----------- 3. 23.7.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “This is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions directing the respondents to pay difference of revised pay scale of the petitioner from 1.1.1996 till the date of retirement, which has been revised in view of the Finance Department Resolution No. 660(F/2) dated 8.2.99 and further fix and pay the pension in revised pay scale accordingly.” Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that even though the petitioner had retired on 2 31.10.1999, he was still entitled for revision in pay scale in terms of the pay revision made by the Finance Department vide resolution dated 8.2.1999 which was implemented for teaching and non-teaching employees of private recognized Sanskrit Schools only in the year 2000. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the pay fixation statement made by the District Education Officer, Patna and the District Superintendent of Education, Patna dated 22.3.2001 showing the petitioner to be entitled for revision of his pay and the last pay in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 at Rs. 10,000/-. He would, therefore, submit that when such pay fixation was already made in the case of the petitioner there would be no justification in not extending its actual monetary benefit thereof even when the State Government in its resolution dated 8.2.1999 had made it clear that such monetary benefit would be payable w.e.f. 1.4.1997. As usual there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the State and the counsel for the State is not in a position to assist to this Court in any manner. 3 In that view of the matter, this Court for shortening this litigation would direct the District Superintendent of Education, Patna to examine the claim of the petitioner by getting it placed before the District Education Establishment Committee and if the Committee finds that the pay revision statement of the petitioner is correct, it would direct for release of the amount and refixation of retirement benefit in the revised pay scale. Such exercise must be completed by the Committee through its Secretary, the District Superintendent of Education, within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In order to expedite the whole thing the petitioner is also given liberty to file a self contained representation alongwith a copy of this order enclosing necessary documents, whereafter the final decision, as indicated above, must be taken by the Committee within the prescribed period. It goes without saying that consequential payment to the petitioner, if 4 any, if not already made, in terms of pay fixation statement, contained in Annexure 1 to this writ application, must be extended to the petitioner within a period of one month of such decision by the District Education Establishment Committee. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/