IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2032 of 2003 RATNESHWAR JHA, son of late Sri Nikunt Jha, resident of village Motipur, Post Akta, P.S. Bairganiya, District Sitamarhi. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Regional Education Deputy Director, Tirhut Parmandal, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Education Officer, Shivaher. 4. The Headmaster, Govt. Basic School, Bisahi, Piparahi, District Shivaher, P.S. Bisahi. 5. The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar. ----------- 4 3.9.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner as with regard to the following relief prayed for by the petitioner in this writ application, “That this writ petition is directed for commanding the respondents to pay the graduate scale from 1.9.89 Rs. 1500 to 2750/- and also pay the next senior scale from 1.4.91 Rs. 1800 to 3330 till the date of retirement and to fix the pension in accordance with the new scale. The petitioner has retired on 30.4.95 from the post of Headmaster from the Government Basic School, Bishahi, District Shivaher at the pay scale of Rs. 1646 to 2900 though the petitioner is legally entitled senior scale Rs.1800 to 3300 from 1.9.89 to 30.4.95. The juniors to the petitioner have been allowed their senior scale, but the petitioner has been discriminated arbitrarily by not considering his case.” and also taking into account the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, this Court must hold that any promotion in B.A. trained scale of pay to the petitioner could be admissible to him only in terms of 1993 Rules made operative since 1.1.1986, inasmuch as, he had passed his B.A. Examination after the year 1986. 2 Once this aspect becomes clear, the case of the petitioner has now to be governed by the ratio of the judgment of Full Bench in the case of „Ram Nath Prasad Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors’ reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 384, wherein directions have been given for considering the cases of promotion in the B.A. trained scale of pay after preparation of fresh gradation list. The plea of the petitioner that one Md. Kafil being junior to him was given the B.A. trained scale of pay, though explained in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit to the effect that Md. Kafil had passed B. A. Examination in the year 1980, whereas petitioner had passed the said examination in the year 1989, should be examined afresh by the Respondents and if it is found that the petitioner is not questioning any promotion of any junior who were already given such promotion prior to 1986 and such promotion for the first time after 1986 has been reiterated in course of fresh consideration in terms of judgment of Full Bench in the case of Ram Nath Prasad Singh (Supra), the petitioner also will be entitled for notional benefit of such promotion. It is, however, made clear that on the basis of such notional benefit the petitioner‟s retirement benefit shall be recalculated and the enhanced the amount of retirement benefit, if any, shall also be paid to the petitioner. If however it is found that no junior to the petitioner was given promotion w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in terms of 1993 Rules, the 3 claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion will be accordingly rejected by passing an appropriate order in this regard. With the aforementioned observation/ direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)