IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.494 of 2009 1. MOST.SARASHWATI DEVI wife of Late Kedar Nath Singh, 2. Sunil Prasad son of Late Kedar Nath Singh 3. Sudhir Kumar Sinha 4. Sujit Kumar both sons of Late Kedar Nath Singh All R/O Village Chandharian Chak, P.S.Barh, Distt-Patna Appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Department, New Secretariat, 2nd Floor, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Patna 4. The Chief Medical Officer (Malariya) 5. The Incharge Medical Officer, Patna 6. Accountant General, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. Respondents. ----------- For the appellants :Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, no.2 For respondent no.6 :Mr. C.P.K.Rajgarhia, ASC --- 4. 01.9.2009. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. The appellants herein are the substituted heirs of the writ petitioner Kedar Nath Singh. The appellants pray that the gratuity paid to the writ petitioner on his retirement from 31.1.1997 should also be revised because of revised pay scale which became notionally effective from 1.6.1996. Learned Counsel for the Accountant General has pointed out that notional revision of pay scale will not be of any help to the appellants in the matter of calculation of gratuity when the writ petitioner retired prior to 1.4.1997 which was the date fixed when the monetary benefits would become admissible by revised pay scale. He 2 further pointed out that after 1.4.1997, the pension benefit to the appellants required to be revised and that has been done, but the gratuity cannot be revised on account of notional revision of pay scale. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the writ court was misled to record that all pensionary benefits have been paid and in fact, interest on account of delayed payment has not been paid. Whether that claim for interest on account of delayed payment was considered by the writ court or not is not apparent from the impugned order. In that view of the matter, we decline to go into that claim. However, if so advised, the appellants may seek their remedy from the writ court in accordance with law, may be by filing a petition for review. We do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observation. ahk (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Jyoti Saran)