IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9169 of 1993 AMOD PRASAD SHARMA, S/O LATE JAUHARI LAL SHARMA, ASSISTANT TEACHER, MODEL INTER SCHOOL, MUNGER, R/O KASHIM BAZAR, P.S.-KASHIM BAZAR, DISTRICT-MUNGER. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MUNGER. 5. THE HEADMASTER, MODEL INTER SCHOOL, MUNGER. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 11 26.03.2010 Petitioner has filed this writ application in 1993. In sum and substance his grievance is in respect of some communications issued by the District Education Officer to all the Principals of the Schools in respect of fixation of salary and for recovery of the excess paid to the teachers of the schools. From the pleadings, it appears that the said order was passed by the District Education Officer, in view of the resolution of the Government dated 20.02.1993, by which Clause 13(ii) of earlier resolution dated 18.12.1989 was modified and Rule 78(ii) of the Bihar Service Code was made applicable in place of Rule 22 (C) of the Fundamental Rules. This has affected the pay scales of the teachers of the primary and secondary Schools and the same was 2 lowered down. The effect and operation of the said resolution dated 20.02.1993 fell for consideration by the Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors and by judgment delivered in the case as reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 74 (SC), the Apex Court has held that the resolution will apply prospectively and, therefore, the salary of the teachers shall stand reduced with effect from the date of the operation of the said resolution. However, it held that no recovery could be made from the salary of the teachers which was paid to them prior to this resolution coming into force. It appears that the grievances of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment of the Apex Court. Therefore, the writ application is disposed of in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment. If the petitioner still has any subsisting grievance he may represent before the concerned authorities. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)