IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13990 of 2002 Krishna Mohan Sharma, S/o Late Harihar Sharma, Resident of Village and P.O. Nawadah, Via-Chaita, District East Champaran. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran, Motihari. 3. The Area Education Officer, Madhuban Anchal, under the District of East Champaran, Motihari. 4. The Treasury Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. ----------- Respondents ----------- 3 30.06.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1(I) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the Respondent no.2 to pay Senior Selection Grade and super time scale in favour of the petitioner because petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 4.2.1966 and in pursuant to the resolution dated 30.12.1981 bearing memo no. 3/PRC 3/81/F10770, issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, the Respondent authorities only granted junior Selection grade with effect from 1.4.1981 but thereafter deprived the petitioner from further promotion. (II) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to provide entire facilities of senior selection grade and 2 suppertime scale in pursuant to the Resolution dated 30.12.1981 bearing no. as 3/P.R.C. 3/81/F-10770 (Annexure-1) because the state Govt. after considering the recommendations of forth Pay Revision Committee accepted the revised scale of Pay. (II) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the Respondents to pay entire consequential benefits including arrear of pay because petitioner prior to the date of appointment was Matriculation Trained and also passed his graduation examination in the year 1975, hence entitled for B.A. trained scale w.e.f. 1975 itself, because till date petitioner is getting Matric trained scale.” Counsel for the State with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, copy whereof had also been served on the counsel for the petitioner on 4.9.2006, would submit that the petitioner was not entitled for grant of such payment as claimed in this writ application. In this context, he has invited attention of this Court towards the following uncontroverted statement of the respondents in their counter affidavit:- 3 “5(a) That the petitioner was appointed as Matric trained teacher on 4.2.66. He got junior selection grade since 1981 as per decision of District Education Establishment Committee dated 25.5.86 and the teachers appointed in June 64 earlier to the petitioner got the senior selection grade. There is no illegality in the same. The claim of the petitioner to have senior selection grade is not tenable. (b) That since the petitioner was appointed on 4.2.66, therefore he was given Junior Selection grade. This remained ti.. 31.12.85 and as per letter dated 18.12.89 of finance department regarding pay revision scheme since 1.1.86 the earlier position came to an end as to provide Junior and senior section grade. (c) That since 1.186, the Matric trained teacher being in service for 12 years all got senior pay scale. (d) That the petitioner retired in 2004 with the service emoluments according to pay revision scheme of 1.1.86 of Bihar Finance Department. 6. That the statement made in para 1 to 4 of the writ petition it is submitted that the reliefs sought by the petitioner is not tenable and he was not entitled to senior selection grade since 1.1.81. The facts relating to that has stated 4 in fore-going paras of this counter affidavit. 7. That the statement made in para-5 to 8 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as matric trained on 4.2.66, and was quite junior in service, who had been appointed before him in 1964. In the District Education Establishment meeting dated 25.5.86 per the seniority position in relation to appointments, the 20 teachers appointed in 1964 were in top list of and were given senior selection grade and the rest including the petitioners were given junior selection grade since 1.4.81, and accordingly the pay had to be paid. The scheme came to an end by 1.1.86, as per pay revision scheme.” That being so, once there is no dispute on the issue that the petitioner was not entitled for grant of such promotion as claimed in this writ application, the prayer made in this writ application has to be rejected. That being so, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)