CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No 633 OF 1998 *** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. *** Dr Ram Sevak Singh, son of late Ram Khelawan Singh, working as Lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit Shahita and Moulik Sidhant, Government Ayurvedic Medical College, Kadam Kuan, Patna - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Secretary –cum- Commissioner, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna 2 The Additional Secretary –cum- Special Commissioner, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Deputy Secretary –cum- Director, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Devendra Kr Sinha, Sr Advocate With Mr Mahendra Pd Sharma, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr AC to GA 5 *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH Navaniti Prasad Singh, J In the year 1997, just prior to his superannuation, petitioner had filed this writ petition claiming promotion as Reader and Professor thereafter. Petitioner was appointed as Demonstrator on 20.05.1977 and then pursuant to fresh advertisement, as Lecturer on 14.12.1977. We need not go into the controversies now inasmuch as a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed sworn by the Deputy Secretary, Ayurved, Directorate of Indigenous System of Medicine annexing therewith a notification dated 28.06.2006 issued by the State Government in which the relief, as claimed by the petitioner, has 2 been duly granted. Petitioner has been promoted, with retrospective effect, to the post of Reader with effect from 01.07.1989 and to the post of Professor with effect from 01.07.1994. The petitioner superannuated on 31.07.1999. So far as remuneration is concerned, for the period during which petitioner was in service, he continued to work as a Lecturer. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong in the decision of the Department in not granting him financial benefit accordingly. But so far as payment, upon superannuation is concerned, the same must be made in the scale of Professor and not on the basis of last pay certificate because that was erroneous as at that time, petitioner was wrongly shown to be a Lecturer. Learned counsel for the State states that the notification itself provides that the retiral dues would be worked out and paid on basis of revised pay scale. This Court would only clarify that revised pay scale would mean pay scale revised as per notification granting promotion to the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (Navaniti Prasad Singh) Patna High Court, The 30th of September, 2010, NAFR, M E Haque/