IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.449 of 2008 CHANDRESHWAR MISHRA, S/O LATE SHASHI NATH MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE- PHULPURA, P.O.-CHAKSIKANDAR, P.S.-BIDHUPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI AT PRESENT WORKING AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN BHAGWAN SHANKAR HIGH SCHOOL, LALGANJ, AT AND P.O.-LALGANJ, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. .......PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY- CUM-COMMISSIONER, PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, VAISHALI. 5. DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER, BHAGWAN SHANKAR HIGH SCHOOL, LALGANJ, VAISHALI. ........RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 20.06.2011 In this writ application petitioner’s claim is for payment of his salary in the revised scale from the date order was passed by the Director, Secondary Education contained in memo no. 1035 dated 17.09.1988, as contained in Annexure-4, by which his services, besides of two others, were recognized from the date of publication of result of Acharya examination. It was made clear in the order that salary shall be paid on the basis of their actual period of working. The District Education Officer was directed that the pay fixation of the petitioner and others shall be done after 2 verification of their original certificates. It was also made clear that, in case, post was not vacant in the school the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall send proposal for absorption of their services in any school outside the district for approval. From the above order, it appears that the three teachers including the petitioner were treated as in service on the date of the order and, therefore, directions were issued for fixation of their pay in the revised scale. However, fact remains that although the school concerned was taken-over on 02.10.1980, the services of the petitioner and other two teachers were not taken-over. It is submitted that the other two teachers, in the meanwhile, joined some other school and continued in service, whereas the petitioner came on road. Finally, pursuant to the said order of the Director, petitioner was absorbed in service and he joined his place of posting in the school with effect from 04.10.1990. It is admitted that with effect from 04.10.1990 petitioner is being paid his salary in the revised scale. It is the period between 27.03.1982 (the date on 3 which he acquired the qualification of Acharya) till 03.10.1990 for which petitioner has claimed his salary as per the revised scale. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the other two teachers were paid their salary in the revised scale in terms of Annexure-4 from the date they completed their training course, whereas petitioner has been paid his salary in the revised scale with effect from 04.10.1990. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner is that since the order (Annexure-4) was common petitioner should have also been paid his salary in the manner the same was paid to the other two teachers. Unfortunately, petitioner is not entitled for the same because of the reason that the other two teachers joined some other school, during the period their cases for absorption and recognition was pending with the Government, and they continued in service. Hence, they had legitimate claim for revised salary pursuant to the said order Annexure-4 from the date they completed training, whereas the petitioner remained out 4 of service all through the period and came back in service only on 04.10.1990. In the circumstances, he can get his salary in the revised scale from that date only which admittedly he is getting. Hence, this Court does not find that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of the other two teachers covered by Annexure-4 and, therefore, does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)