IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7588 OF 2005 BHUWAN RAM, SON OF LATE SARYUGH RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HANUMANPATTI (GANGAPUR), POLICE STATION MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. AT PRESENT, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, SUNDER NAGAR HARIJAN ANCHAL KUMARKHAND, DISTRICT MADHEPURA ………………………………………………………………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDCUATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHEPURA 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KUMARKHAND, MADHEPURA …………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. GAUTAM KEJRIWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. APURVA KUMAR, AC TO SC 10 ************ 5 07/02/2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application by which the Director, Primary Education has disposed of the representation of the petitioner in terms of the order passed in CWJC No. 8600 of 2003 dated 14.10.2003. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and was given matric untrained scale in the year 1973. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that at the time of his appointment, he ought to have been granted the intermediate untrained scale as was granted to some other persons who are similarly situated to the petitioner. The petitioner raised his grievances before the District 2 Superintendent of Education who recommended a higher scale on 22.12.1997. The first time the petitioner raised his grievance in the year 2003 by filing a writ application before this Court. This Court directed that the representation of the petitioner should be disposed of within a period of three months. The main claim of the petitioner is that he should be granted the intermediate untrained scale and that his pay scale has wrongly been fixed on 01.09.1983 as Rs. 580-860/-. According to the petitioner, it should have been 680-965/- and it is, therefore, submitted that all subsequent pay scales are illegal and incorrect. A grievance has also been raised by the petitioner that the revised scale fixed on 18.12.1989 has wrongly been fixed as 1200-1800. I do not think that this Court can pass any positive order regarding the claims of the petitioner. The issue whether his pay scale was rightly fixed or not in the year 1983 cannot now be considered. Besides which, there is insufficient materials for this Court to hold that the petitioner was wrongly granted the pay scale as far back as in the year 1983. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )