IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.430 of 2005 RAMASHISH SINGH SON OF Late Dharamadeo Singh, Resident of village-Ghatikan, P.O.Thanua, P.S.Shivsagar, Distt-Rohtas. —Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas, Sasaram 5. The Director Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna 6. The District Provident Fund Officer, ‘Rohtas, Sasaram. —Respondents. ---------- 5. 3.2.2010. Heard Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary for the petitioner and Mr. Himanshu Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to GP.5 for the State. The petitioner had filed the writ petition for payment of 1 % bonus on the provident fund amount and the amount of difference of salary for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 together with the statutory interest which was deposited in the provident fund account of the petitioner. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 the District Superintendent of education, Rohtas at Sasaram and in so far as the claim of the difference of salary for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 is concerned, it was stated that the same was admissible to only such of teachers who were initially appointed in the 2 school run by Municipal Corporation, Municipality or District Board or such schools governed by the managing Committee and which was subsequently taken over under the Act of 1976. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner was also not entitled to the claim of bonus on GPF. It is further stated that the petitioner, by letter dated 30.6.2005 was directed to produce evidence as regarding his claim for difference of salary for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 but he has not responded to the same. Relevant extract of the ledger has been enclosed as Annexure-A and which shows that there is no balance in relation to the difference of salary for the period in question. Learned counsel for the State submits that the school in which the petitioner was initially appointed does not appear to be amongst the schools run by the Municipal Corporation, Municipality or the District Board and thus he was not entitled to his claims. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be representing before the authority concerned with supportive documents and who may be appropriately directed to consider the same and pass appropriate direction. 3 Having regard to the facts set forth, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram with supportive details and circular and who would consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law and if the petitioner is found entitled to the claims put forth by him, the same should be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. The writ petition is disposed of ahk (Jyoti Saran,J.)