IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.1612 OF 2007 1. MUKUND PRASAD, SON OF LATE SHIV RATAN HARIJAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PARSAHI, P.O. DUBEJIGNA, VIA+P.S.-BHORE, DIST- GOPALGANJ. 2. RAJ BALLABH RAM, SON OF LATE RAGHUNI RAM, RESIDETN OF VILLAGE-KHALWA TOLA, P.O.- RADHAGANJ BAZAR, P.S. PHULWARIA, DIST- GOPALGANJ. 3. WAKIL RAM, SON OF LATE RAGHUNATH RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+ P.O. BAJTARJINI, CIRCLE-HATWA, P.S. MIRGANJ, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. 4. MUNILAL RAM, SON OF LATE SARAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JAMSARHA, P.O. HATHWA, P.S.- UCHKAGAON, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. 5. NIRANJAN RAM SON OF LATE JUGESHWAR RAM, RESIDETN OF VILLAGE+ P.O.- MISHIR BATARHA, P.S.- PHULWARIA, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. …..PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA. 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GOPALGANJ. 6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ. ……RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02. 01.08.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that Mr. Shanti Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner has himself confined the relief sought in paragraph no. 1 in this writ application only to the following extent:- “This application is also being filed for commanding the respondents 2 to extend the financial benefits due to the petitioners with effect from 01.03.1989 in light of para 7 of Govt. resolution no. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.” this Court would find it difficult to allow such prayer in absence of any specific averment showing the actual date of promotion of the petitioners in the B.Sc trained scale of pay. The reliance placed by the petitioners on Annexure-5, the order passed in Chandra Shekhar Tiwari by allowing him the benefit of difference of salary from 31.12.1985, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C No. 5647 of 1992 seems to be wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the petitioners have ignored the fact that in the case of Mr. Tiwari, it was an admitted position that he had been given such promotion in the B.Sc trained scale of pay w.e.f., 31.12.1985. The date i.e. 31.12.1985 has relevance, inasmuch as, the 1993 statutory Rules came into force w.e.f., 01.01.1986, whereafter any promotion given would be vulnerable and therefore, when the petitioners' promotion on the post of Headmaster was notified on 23.11.1995, this 3 Court would find it difficult to grant the relief as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner which in effect would also amount to raising a wholly stale matter. The petitioners have already retired from service and only thereafter it had occurred to them that they were entitled for certain difference of salary for their service period an event which had taken place at least a decade back if not earlier. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J)