Letters Patent Appeal No.32 of 2008 Against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7954 of 2000. Arbind Kumar, son of Late Shishupal Singh, resident of village – Alipur, Post Office – Besai Bigha, Police Station – Ekangar Sarai, District – Nalanda and at present residing at Mohalla – East Indira Nagar, Road No. 4, Police Station – Kankerbagh, Patna – 800020, Town & District – Patna. -------------Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. District Education Establishment Committee, Through its Chairman, The District Magistrate, Patna. 3. District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 4. Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna. 5. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna. 6. District Education Officer, Patna. 7. District Inspector of School, Patna. 8. Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna. 9. Regional Joint Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna. --------------Respondents-Respondents ****** For the appellant : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Kishore Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, G.A.1 Mr. Alok Kumar, AC to G.A.1 ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ******* T. Meena Kumari & Akhilesh Chandra, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7954 of 2000. 2 3. The grievance of petitioner-appellant herein is that the issuance of direction to the respondents authorities to pay the entire differential amount of salary on the promoted pay scale of Arts Graduate Trained Headmaster with effect from 01.04.1976 till 31.01.1999. 4. The learned Single Judge on hearing the matter has not accepted the contention against which the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. But, however, during the course of arguments for admission, the appellants seems to have filed Annexure – 9 series including Annexure – 14, the document dated 10.08.1996 was brought on record in supplementary affidavit filed on 16.11.2006. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent State. It was disputed also the genuineness of the contents of the Annexure – 14 on the ground of no such office order was issued from the office of District Superintendent of Education, Patna, which is memo no. 21(Legal) dated 10.08.1996. It is also stated that the said memo is not in use in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Patna on such assertion made in the counter affidavit. 5. A Division Bench of this court dated 04.09.2009 directed to the respondent State to 3 conduct a vigilance inquiry by a responsible officer of any department, police or vigilance of the State Government and to file a report to this court with regard to genuineness of Annexure – 14. The genuineness of such memo has been enquired into by the vigilance and the report has been placed before this court by filing supplementary affidavit by the State. It has been stated that Annexure – 14 is the forged one and no such memo has been received in the three subordinate offices of the district and it is also stated at para 7 that said Annexure – 14 is forged one and this Letters Patent Appeal itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that the inquiry report shows that no such memo is received in the three subordinate offices of the district such as Treasury Office, Patna, The Area Education Officer, Patna City and The Principal Gazadhar Middle School, Prithivipur, Chiraiyatar, Patna. 6. We are of the opinion that the appellant-petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief sought in the writ petition, but, however, liberty is granted to the appellant-petitioner herein to agitate his rights before an appropriate forum, if he is aggrieved of any finding of the inquiry report. 4 In case, any of the authorities finds that the inquiry report finds that Annexure – 14 is a genuine document, we give liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate orders for hearing of Letters Patent Appeal by filing appropriate application. 7. With the above observation and liberty, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. Patna High Court Date : The 13th May 2011 Rajeev/N.A.F.R. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)