IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7059 of 2011 SURYA NARAIN SINGH sonof late Bibhuti Singh, resident of mohalla Askaminini Nagar, Bikramganj, Ward no. 13, P.O. + P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas, … … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna, 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, at Sasaram, 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram, 4. The District Treasury Officer, Rohtas, at Sasaram, … … Respondents For the Petitioner: M/s Sudama Singh and Rajani Kant Singh, Advocates For the State: Mr. Ashok Kr. Pathak, AC to GP XI ----------- 2 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks direction for fixation of revised pay scale of the petitioner according to the 6th Pay Revision and thereafter for fixing his pension along with other admissible consequential benefits with statutory interest, if payable. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has retired as Assistant Teacher on 30.09.2007 from Middle School, Bhalunidham and, thereafter, he represented before the District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram on 17.09.2010 for the grant of aforesaid relief, a copy of 2 which has been appended as Annexure 1, however, nothing has been communicated to him as yet. Thus, it is contended that the authorities may be directed to take a decision upon the aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State raises no objection to that. As a result, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3, the District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram, to take a decision upon the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of fresh representation along with a copy of this order and such decision taken upon the representation of the petitioner should be communicated to him. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the points which he has taken in this application. It is also made clear that if the petitioner’s claim is found to be correct and a decision is taken for payment of some amount, the same should be paid to him within three months from the date such decision taken by the respondent no. 3. If the dispute still exists, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek a remedy again which is permissible in law. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)