IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1540 of 2009 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 2236/2002) Mahabir Prasad Singh S/O Late Shri Shahdeo Prasad Singh R/O Village And P.O.- Karharia, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Regional Deputy Director of Education Bhagalpur. 3. District Superintendent of Education Bhagalpur. 4. Area Education Officer Sultanganj, Bhagalpur. 5. District Accounts Officer, Pay Fixation Cell Bhagalpur. --------------------- For the Appellant:- Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Advocate. Mr. T.P. Verma, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. Prabhat Kumar, A.C. to G.A. 2. 5. 29.07.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2236 of 2002. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the writ application on the ground of delay of 19 years. The claim of the appellant in the L.P.A. is with regard to entitlement of the benefit of revised pay-scale with effect from 1.4.1981 and he was extended the same benefit vide order dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). It is stated that the appellant had retired in the year December, 1998. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even though a representation 2 has been made by the appellant on 12.5.1998 a notice was issued to him in the year 1997. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as notice was issued to the appellant by the department on 4.10.97, hence he approached this Court in the year 2002 even though he retired in the year 1998. It has also been contended that the representation has been made on 12.5.1998 and he got superannuated with effect from 3.12.1998. But in view of the fact that his representation was still pending, we are of the opinion that it would suffice if a liberty is given to the appellant to make an appropriate representation to the authorities concerned for the relief sought for in the writ petition and the same shall be disposed off on the background of the observation made by learned Single Judge on merits, if he is otherwise eligible in accordance with law. We make it clear that if the statement of learned counsel for the appellant is true that a notice has been issued to him on 04.10.1997 then the representation filed by him shall be considered in accordance with law in the background of the observation made by the learned Single Judge on merits. We also make it clear that if the authorities 3 come to the conclusion that he is entitled for the benefit sought in the writ petition the calculation of the pension shall be made on that basis in accordance with law, but he shall not be entitled for the claim of any arrears. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. Anand Kr. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)