IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.63 of 2006 BANARASI PRASAD (EX ASSISTANT TEACHER), SON OF LATE JAGARNNATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- FATEHCHAND, P.O. KHAJURAR, P.S. AND ANCHAL-BARH, DISTRICT-PATNA. EX ASSISTANT TEACHER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, RAHIMA, P.O. ATTANAMA, ANCHAL-BARH, DISTRICT-PATNA. AT PRESENT ADDRESS-BANARASI PRASAD-EX ASSISTANT TEACHER, FATHER OF SONS RAKESH KUMAR @ ONKAR PRASAD AND VIVEKANAND PRASAD, VILLAGE + MOHALLA-DAYACHAK NAYATOLA, WARD NO.21/12, P.O. BARH, BAJITPUR, P.S. BARH, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………………………………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT, PATNA, BIHAR. ……………………………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Satish Kumar Sinha & Bisheshwar Sinha, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, AC to AAG-X. For the Accountant : Mr. Madhusesh Prasad, Advocate. General, Bihar, Patna. ------------- 5. 28.2.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. From the averments of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner is raising a stale claim regarding payment 2 of difference of salary, which was being given to a person junior to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show that during the tenure of his service, he has raised his grievance before the concerned authorities. It is also not shown that after his retirement in the year 1992 also, he had raised his grievance before the concerned authorities for several years. Thus, ordinarily, this Court would not have desired to decide such a stale claim. However, from Annexures-‘2’ and ‘1’, which are the letters dated 12.4.1996 and 31.7.2004, it appears that his claim was being considered by the authorities concerned and the petitioner has also brought on record, the Annexures-‘3’ and ‘3/A’ wherefrom it appears that the petitioner had filed representations before the Respondent No.3, the Director, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna, in the year 2004 and 2005. The State had sought adjournment as back as on 10.7.2007 for filing affidavit but despite of subsequent orders dated 10.12.2010 as well as 27.1.2011, extending the time for taking instruction or filing counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for the State submits that he is yet to receive instructions. In the aforesaid facts and the circumstances, this 3 writ application is being disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Respondent No.3, the Director, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna, within one month from today. If such representation is filed, then the Respondent No.3, the Director, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna, should dispose of the same within three month thereafter on its own merit and in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and such order passed should be communicated to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to the merit of the cases of the parties. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)