IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4737 of 1997 1. Bimla Singh wife of late Nawal Kishore Singh ,resident of village- Barar, P.S. Hathauli, District- Muzaffarpur. 2. Depti Bharti daughter of late Nawal Kishore Singh, resident of Village- Barar, P.S. Hathauli, District- Muzaffarpur. 3. Chandan Kumar son of late Nawal Kishore Singh, resident of Village- Barar, P.S. Hathauli, District- Muzaffarpur. 4. Arunesh Gauro, son of late Nawal Kishore Singh, resident of Village- Barar, P. S. Hathauli, District- Muzaffarpur. --------Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner and Secretary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 2. District Education Establishment Committee through the the District Magistrate-cum- Chairman, Muzaffarpur. 3. District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. 4. Headmaster, Middle School, Kanhara, P.S. Bochaha, District- Muzaffarpur. -----Respondents. -------- For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mrs. Nutan Kumar Sharma, J.C. to G.P.5. --------- 5. 25.11.2008, Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The original petitioner late Nawal Kishore Singh alongwith two others were appointed on 20.12.1973 and joined on 2.1.1974 in the Matric trained scale. Subsequently, the original petitioner was granted I. Sc. trained scale vide Memo No. 287 dated 27.1.1990. The order granting scale of I. Sc. was cancelled vide Memo No.2161 dated 8.8.1994 (annexure-8) and by the said order, the petitioner was granted I. Sc. scale from 3.7.1978. This memo has been issued in compliance of C. W. J. C. No. 6160 of 1993. The original petitioner being aggrieved with the date of - 2 - grant of I. Sc. scale which has been reduced vide annexure-8, had filed the present writ application. It may be mentioned that annexure-8 also orders for recovery of difference of pay given to the original petitioner from 1975 till the date of issuance of annexure-8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur in which it is said that Sri Prabhakar Prasad Singh and Sri Umesh Prasad Singh were appointed under a scheme of the Central Government on stipend basis. It is the claim of the State that those persons who had been appointed on stipend basis, would be granted Matric trained scale and I. Sc. trained scale from 1.4.1975. The letter granting the scale is contained in Annexure-A of the counter affidavit. It appears from Annexure-A that those teachers who were Matric trained would be given a higher scale of Rs. 230-340/-whereas those teachers who were I. Sc. trained would be granted the scale of Rs. 296-445/- On the basis of the aforesaid letter of the State Government it has been urged that since other persons were granted Matric trained scale and I. Sc. trained scale from 1.4.1975 in compliance of the order of the State Government under the scheme they would be entitled to get I. Sc. trained scale from 1.4.1975. The original petitioner alongwith Sri Prabharkar Prasad Singh and Sri Umesh Prasad Singh were all appointed on regular basis on the same date i.e., 2.12.1973 in the Matric trained scale. Having come in the regular cadre, it is my opinion, all of them have to be treated in the same manner and Sri Prabhakar Prasad - 3 - Singh and Sri Umesh Prasad Singh can not be entitled to get an advantage over the original petitioner by virtue of their services rendered on stipend basis and the benefits that they were receiving while working on stipend basis. However, this Court passed an order with respect to those two persons as they are not parties in this case. I do not think that the grounds raised by the original petitioner are justifiable and he can not be given any advantage on the basis of the fact that some other persons have been wrongly granted a higher pay scale. It would be open to the authorities to look into the matter in that respect. However, in the facts of this case, the order contained in annexure-8 ordering the recovery of the excess of pay scale granted to the petitioner shall stand quashed. The writ application is dismissed. No order as to cost. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)