IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6363 of 2006 ***** Sultan Ahmad Ansari, S/o Late Rajab Ali Mian, Village-Shekhpura, P.O.+P.S.-Narhat, District- Nawada. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Primary Education Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Nawada. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Nawada. 7. The Head Master, Middle School, Gulani, Pakribarma, District-Nawada. …. …. Respondents ----------- 4. 20.2.2009. Issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ application is non-payment of his provident fund, difference in pay, which was deposited in the G.P.F. account from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 and fixation of his pension on the basis of last pay drawn. After filing of affidavits by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only grievance or issue left is the authorization of pension by the Accountant General, which is contained in Annexure-3. His contention is that his last pay drawn was Rs.11,250/- and average pay is Rs.11,100/- and the sanction of Rs.4525/- as pension is not 50% of the average pay and the same requires revision. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Accountant General, who have stated that the provisional pension of the petitioner was sanctioned by the District Superintendent of Education, which was not in conformity in relation to grant of one increment in terms of Rule 22(c) of the Fundamental Rules. The pension fixed by the Accountant General is the correct fixation and, therefore, the - 2 - claim of the petitioner is that it requires refixation. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes this position and states that there is a difference in the way the pay is fixed after the pay revision of 1.1.1996, but the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that large number of writ applications have been filed before this High Court when recovery was sought to be effected from Teachers serving in the State of Bihar under Rule 22(c) of the Fundamental Rules and the matter has traveled right up to the Supreme Court. The only relief which has been granted is that no recovery is to be made but fixation of the pay-scale and the pension has not been interfered with. In that view of the matter, the relief or prayer of the petitioner for revision of pension is misplaced. No direction in this regard is required to be passed. Since the other relief has already been granted to the petitioner, the writ application has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)