IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12716 of 2008 1. Shobha Sinha, Wife of Sunil Kumar, daughter of Late Krishna Mohan Prasad, resident of Village Inayatpur, P.S. & District Nalanda. 2. Kumari Lalmani, Wife of Ram Prasad Purvey, Daughter of Janardan Prasad Mandal, resident of village Vanjhula, P.S. & District Sitamarhi. 3. Niraj Kumar, son of late Ramrup Sah, Resident of Village Mahnar, P.S. + District Vaishali…………………………………………………………………….…Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Human Resources Development (Secondary Education) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division. 7. The District Education Officer, Samastipur. 8. The Principal, Government (2) Modle High School, Samastipur…………………………………..Respondents --------- For Petitioners: Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate For the State: G.P. 8 5 14.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioners have challenged an office order issued by the Human Resources Development Department, contained in Memo No.68 dated 20.04.2005 by which a correction in the appointment letters of the petitioners has been made replacing the clause in respect 2 of their appointments on fixed pay with their appointments in the prescribed pay- scale with all admissible benefits. This office order has been challenged to the extent that the same has been made applicable from the date of issue of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once correction has been made in the appointment letters of the petitioners itself, the same has to be applied from the date of issue of appointment letter itself and not from the date of issue of the order. Learned counsel points out that the same very office order was considered by this Court in the case of Kumari Kiran Jaiswal Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 969 and this Court has held that once appointment letter was being corrected, the same has to be applied from the date of issue of appointment letter itself. On the last occasion, learned counsel for the respondents was given time to ascertain as to whether any appeal has been preferred by the respondents against 3 the said judgment of this Court or not. Learned counsel for the respondents has not brought on record any material to show that the said judgment of this Court has been challenged by the respondents in appeal or has been set aside by any higher court. In the circumstances, the writ application is allowed and it is held that the said judgment passed in Kumari Kiran Jaiswal (supra) shall be applicable in the case of the present petitioners as well and findings and directions contained therein shall be treated to be issued in the case of these petitioners also. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)