WP(C) 2458/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. N.N. Upadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also hea rd Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioners while serving as teachers in different non-provincialize d schools in Assam were selected to undergo to Language Training for a period of 10 months, sponsored by the Central Institute of Indian Language, Ministry of H uman Resources & Development, Government of India during 1998-1999 and in the of fer letter issued to the selected teachers, it was indicated that the trainees w ill be paid fixed remuneration of Rs.1375/- per month. The petitioners accepted the said offer and joined the training at the Northern Regional Language Centre at Patiala and at the Western Regional Language Centre at Pune. They have also s uccessfully completed their training and received their stipulated remuneration. 3. These petitions have been filed with a claim for further remuneration on the ground that there has been upward Revision of Pay for the teachers serving in provincialized schools and accordingly they claim remuneration at an enhanced rate of Rs.3580/- instead of Rs.1375/- per month. 4. Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department subm its that the State Authorities are not required to pay the remuneration to the t rainees and the cost is to be borne by the concerned Institutes where the traini ng is received. The learned Counsel further submits that the State is only a rec ommending authority and the amount of remuneration payable to the trainee is a m atter to be decided by the respective Institutes. The learned Counsel further su bmits that with the upward Revision of Pay for the teachers of provincialized sc hools, there is no corresponding upward Revision of Pay for teachers who are ser ving in non-provincialized schools and they usually received fixed pay per month . 5. I find from the letter (Annexure-A) addressed to the petitioners that th e trainees were selected subject to fixed remuneration of Rs.1375/- per month. N o mention was made in the said letter that the remuneration would correspond to the Scale of Pay, receivable by the petitioners as serving school teachers. 6. Furthermore, the petitioners have not been able to bring anything on rec ord to show that any commitment was made for the year in question, by the Traini ng Institute(s) to pay any higher remuneration, based on upward Revision of Pay of the teachers. They only committed to pay remuneration @ Rs.1375/- per month f or each trainee for the year 1998-1999. 7. The petitioners knowing the remuneration amount payable to them, had joi ned the training and have also received the stipulated remuneration. As there wa s no commitment by respondents to pay any higher amount, I see no enforceable ri ght in favour of the petitioners to claim any additional amount than what was pa id to them by the respective Training Institute(s). 8. Accordingly these writ petitions are found to be without any merit and t he same are dismissed.