IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3595 of 2002 1. YOGENDRA PATHAK, S/O SATYA NARAYAN PATHAK, R/O VILLAGE-BISHNUPUR, P.S.-KUSHESHWARASTHAN, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEAHER, RAJKIYAKRIT B.N.V. HIGH SCHOOL, BANGARHATTA, SAMASTIPUR. 2. MD. SHABBIR AHMAD, S/O MD. AZEEM, R/O VILLAGE- BISHANPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT-MADHUBANI, AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, K.V. ACADEMY, SINGHIA, SAMASTIPUR. 3. RAM PRAVESH THAKUR, S/O SRI SURYADEO THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE-BALHA, P.S.-PUSA, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR, AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER IN LAKSHMI NARAYAN JANTA HIGH SCHOOL, LAUKAHA, MADHUBANI. 4. SHRI KRISHNA PATHAK, S/O LATE BISHWAMBHAR PATHAK, R/O VILLAGE-BERI, P.S.-KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER IN RAJKIYAKRIT B.N.V. HIGH SCHOOL, BANGARHATTA, SAMASTIPUR. …………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR. 6. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MADHUBANI. 7. HEAD MASTER, RAJKIYAKRIT B.N.V. HIGH SCHOOL, BANGARHATTA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 8. HEAD MASTER, K.V. ACADEMY, SINGHIA, SAMASTIPUR. 9. HEAD MASTER, LAKSHMI NARAYAN JANTA HIGH SCHOOL, LAUKAHA, SAMASTIPUR. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 26.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners in this writ application are aggrieved by the Memo No. 4838 (vi) (2) dated 2.8.2001 and 746(B) 2 dated 16.11.2000 issued from the Department of Finance, Government of Bihar by which the increments granted to the petitioners under Fundamental Rule 22(c) was sought to be - 2 - withdrawn and excess amount paid to the petitioners were sought to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this issue was decided by different Benches of this Court vide case reported in 2001(3) PLJR 412 and judgments annexed with the writ application as Annexures-7 and 9. He submits that the matter reported in 2001 (3) PLJR 412 travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the same partially vide judgment reported in 2009 (2) PLJR (SC) 74. He submits that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment this writ application may be disposed of holding the law laid down and directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be applicable in the cases of the petitioners also. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the writ application is fit to be disposed of in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. In view of the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and in view of the fact that law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, this writ - 3 - application is disposed of and it is held that the orders and directions contained in the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be applicable in the cases of the petitioners also. The writ application is disposed of thus. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)