IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12322 of 2003 Muni Lal Prasad, son of late Dharichhan Prasad, Village Galimpur, P.S. Netua Jalalpur, P.S. Bishambharpur, District Gopalganj. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resource Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Special Secretary, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Goplaganj. 7. The District Accounts Officer, Gopalganj. 8. Bhrigu Nath Rai, S/o not known, Bishupura Primary School, P.S. Kuchaikote, Dt. Gopalganj. -------- Respondents ----------- 7 01.10.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the Respondents to fix revised and correct salary and pension of the petitioner and to make payment of the entire balance amount with the penal interest at the rate of 25% per annum in the pay scale of Rs. 1850.” this Court must hold that not only the petitioner has tried to raise a stale claim as with regard to the alleged anomaly in pay fixation of the year 1986 but has also sought to ignore his own option given in the year 2 1980 for appointment in the I.A. Trained Scale of Pay. As is well known and in fact is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that every employee is entitled to make his option clear whenever the pay fixation has to be made in the revised pay-scale. The petitioner on his own, having continued in the Matric Trained Scale of Pay for a number of years, had opted to be appointed in the I.A. Trained Scale of Pay as is apparent from reading of the order dated 28.2.1980, whereafter, he was given I.A. Trained Scale of Pay. Subsequently, in the year 1986, when the pay revision was to be made, the petitioner was having a separate pay-scale and his pay fixation was made in terms of the Resolution of the Finance Department, whereafter, his pay was fixed at Rs. 1750 as on 1.4.1986. The petitioner does not claim the said pay fixation to be wrong. What he claims now by filing this writ application after his retirement on 31.1.2000 is that since respondent no.8 had also been appointed in the Matric Trained Scale of Pay along with 3 the petitioner and he had got the pay fixation of Rs. 1850 as on 1.4.1986, the petitioner should also be given the same parity from 1.4.1986 onwards. This aspect of the matter has been clarified by the respondents in paragraph nos. 7 to 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- “7. That guidelines memo issued regarding revised pay scale vide letter no. 1154 dated 13.8.1990 by which the cut of date was fixed as 1.1.86 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). Hence on the basis of the said notification (Annexure B) before 1.4.80 petitioner and respondent no.8 were getting the same scales. With effect from 1.4.80 the petitioner got the I.A. trained scale. However, the respondent no.-8 was given 12% benefits as a result of time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.84 considering his continuance in the scale of Matric Trained for more than 10 years. On the other hand the petitioner was treated as fresh appointment on I.A. trained scale with effect from 1.4.80 and was not entitled to time bound promotion on the date respondent no.-8 was given time bound promotion. 8. That it is further stated that as 4 on 1.1.86 the revised pay scale of the petitioner, was Rs. 1700/- and the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1750 as on 1.4.86 whereas the revised pay scale of respondent no.-8 as on 1.1.86 was 1850/- and was fixed at Rs. 1900/- at on 1.4.86. 9. That so far the scale of 1850 on 1.1.86 with regard to respondent no.-8 is concerned it is submitted that his appointment continued in the old pay scale of Matric trained. Further he got 12% benefit as a result of time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.84. 10. That the other hand the petitioner’s pay scale was fixed lesser than Bhirgunath Singh due to his optional appointment dated 28.2.80 (Annexure-B). Hence there is no illegality and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.” There is no rejoinder to the aforesaid supplementary counter affidavit despite service of the copy on the counsel for the petitioner. Thus, once this aspect becomes clear and admitted that the respondent no.8 had never opted for his promotion in the I.A. Trained Scale of Pay and in fact had continued in the Matric Trained Scale of Pay, whereafter, he could earn his Time Bound 5 Promotion in the year 1984, his pay fixation on 1.1.1986 cannot be made the basis by the petitioner for seeking parity. All said and done, the grievance of the year 1986 could not have been raised by the petitioner by filing this wholly belated writ application on 11.11.2003 that too after his retirement on 31.1.2000 and receiving all his retirement benefit on the basis of his last pay drawn. Such a stale claim cannot be allowed by this Court on the ground of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in moving this Court. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same, is, accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)