IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9244 of 2009 DEVENDRA NARAIN PANDEY,SON OF LATE NOONU PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DATTMAI, P.S.-KADIRGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA . ……… ………… ….. ……..PETITIONER. -Versus- 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Secondary Education , New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education , New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The Regional Deputy Director, Patna Division, Patna. 6. The District Education Officer, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda …….. ……… Respondents. ----------- 2. 13.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher at High School, Chandasi in the district of Nalanda. His prayer is for a direction to the respondents to take appropriate decision and action on the representation filed by him for payment of difference of salary which is due since long and is not being paid to the petitioner though similarly situated other teachers who are even juniors to the petitioner, are being paid. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year, 1971 as untrained post graduate teacher in the pay scale of Rs 220-9-310-9-400. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 924 dated 02.07.1974, the petitioner’s service was approved w.e.f. 10.09.1971. His salary was fixed in the scale of untrained post graduate vide Memo No. 24984-87 dated 19.6.1976 w.e.f. 10.9.1971 and accordingly, he was paid his salary. In the year, 1977, the petitioner completed his training and 2 was declared as trained teacher w.e.f. 12.10.1977. The Director, Secondary Education through its Memo No. 19363 dated 24.9.1980 allowed the petitioner’s pay scale of trained teacher w.e.f. date of his training i.e. 12.10.1977 and the petitioner started getting his salary of the trained scale which continued till February, 1981. Suddenly, vide Memo No. 5707/11 dated 11.3.1988, the Deputy Director, Secondary Education stayed payment of salary to the petitioner in the graduate trained scale. Petitioner’s case is that since then, continuously he is representing his case before concerned authorities, but till date, no action has been taken. As per statement made in the writ application, still his representation is pending before the concerned authorities for disposal. This writ application is being disposed of directing the Director as well as the Deputy Director; Secondary Education, Patna to dispose of petitioner’s representation as petitioner’s case is that his representation is pending before both the authorities. His last representation was filed before the respondent No. 4. The petitioner’s representation must be disposed of by a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of production/communication of the order. His representation should be disposed of in accordance with law considering the entitlement and other related aspects of the matter. akv/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )