IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2428 of 2002 PUSHPLATA AMBASTHA, wife of Late Janardan Prasad Verma, resident of 8 A, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh now Patrakar Nagar, Patna …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. District Superintendent of Education, Jamui. 4. District Superintendent of Education, Munger. 5. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. .. Respondents. ----------- 9. 05.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of B. A. Trained pay-scale to her w.e.f. 1971. Such prayer for a cause of action of 31 years back can not be gone into by this Court solely on the ground of delay and laches. That apart, the respondents in their counter- affidavit have explained that merely because the petitioner had passed B. A. and Training examination that alone will not make her eligible to get B. A. Trained pay scale. In this context, in paragraph 5 of the supplementary counter filed on behalf of District 2 Superintendent of Education, Munger it has been explained that “i) The petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher on 29.6.1966 in matric untrained pay scale and got her Intermediate degree in year 1968. ii) the petitioner under gone teacher training course for the sessions 1969-71 and passed it on 1.9.1971 and hence, admittedly got matric trained pay scale with effect from 1.9.1971 (teachers training course in service). iii) The petitioner got intermediate trained pay scale in year 1974. iv) The petitioner purposely concealed the fact regarding the date of publication of result of Sahitya Alankar, she purposely disclosed only the year of course not the examination. It is not out of place to mention here that for the purpose of promotion, graduate list is published of graduate, Intermediate and matriculation, the petitioner also concealed the fact on which date she produced her certificate of Sahitya Alankar to the department for consideration in graduate list. (v) The official record such as the gradation list published in the year 1975 clearly shows that the petitioner neither produced her graduate equivalent certificate before year 1975 nor file any objection on publication of gradation list, in which she was placed in Intermediate trained woman category at serial No. 12. vi) Another gradation list was published in year 1985 and the petitioner got place in it, on the basis of increasement of qualification and was placed at point 28. vii) It is not out of place to mention here that the gradation list prepared in year 1985 proclaims that information regarding passing of Sahitya Alankar was given to the 3 department in year 1977. (viii) that it is also not out of place to mention here that the promotion to the graduate scale is subject to the availability of B. A. trained sanctioned post and seniority in gradation list. ix) The petitioner got placed in promotion list of graduate scale fairly in 1992 and hence, validly she was granted the same. x) The District Jamui is separated from district Munger in the year 1995, the petitioner retired in 1995 since process of verification of Sahitya Alankar was exhausted, her pension could not be fixed in revised scale that time. Finally the District Superintendent of Education, Jamui granted all the retiral dues to the petitioner. xi) The District Superintendent of Education, Jamui may be better person to explain the same authoritatively. xii) Admittedly the petitioner received all the retiral benefits including GPF amount, but the claim is of promotion in graduate scale in year 1971.” That apart it has also been explained that petitioner was given such B. A. Trained Pay Scale w.e.f. 1992 in view of her seniority as shown in the gradation list placing her at serial no. 2048 and admittedly the petitioner had retired from service and therefore when she had also been given B. A. Trained pay scale from the due date i.e. 1992, its being now shifted to 1971 cannot be allowed at this belated stage. 4 That being so, this court would not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)