IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8851 of 2002 NIRMAL NARAIN JHA, son of late Sri Upendra Jha, resident of village and P.O. Andhratharhi, P.S. Andhratharhi, District Madhubani … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga 6. Surendra Rajak, son of not known, Principal, Braj Kishore Dharnidhar Rajkiya Balak Uchcha Vidyalaya (Zila School), Darbhanga … Respondents ----------- 3. 21.6.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 26.11.2001 passed by respondent Principal informing the petitioner and other teachers of the school that they would be granted the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and recovery would be made of the excess salary paid in the higher scale of pay with effect from 1.4.1997 till date. (ii) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including a writ 2 in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2001 passed by respondent Principal, reducing the pay scale of the petitioner. (iii) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 7,500- 12,000/-. (iv) For issuance of an order, direction or writ or an appropriate declaration holding that the petitioner deserves and is entitled to the revised scale of Rs. 7500- 12000/- and the said scale has been rightly granted to the petitioner. (v) For issuance of an order, direction or writ or an appropriate declaration, holding that the letter dated 10.9.2001 contained in Memo No. 878 issued by the respondent Secretary, Secondary Education is not applicable in the case of the petitioner and the pay scale granted to the petitioner cannot be reduced on the basis of the said letter. (vi) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including a writ in the nature of mandamus, restraining the respondents from 3 making recovery from the salary payable to the petitioner. (vii) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to make payment of difference of salary as the pay scale of the petitioner has been illegally reduced from Rs. 7500-12000/- to 5500-9000/-.” In a well explained affidavited petition the petitioner has set out the facts with regard to the aforementioned grievance by explaining in various manner that his fixation of pay scale upon acceptance of pay revision Committee’s report of the year 1999 and its re- determination reducing from 7500-12000 to 5500-9000 was not only against the resolution of P.R.C.report but also in terms of the precedent cases of several other similarly situated teachers including Radha Nath Thakur, Baidyanath Singh and Ram Kumar Jha, as explained in paragraphs no. 35, 36 and 37 of the writ application. Normally a dispute of this nature as with regard to fixation in the revised pay scale can be only gone into if the facts 4 are clear. There being, however, no counter affidavit till date in a space of eight years from the date of filing of the writ application, this Court would leave such an exercise in the first instance to be made by the respondents, if the same has already not been gone into, for examining and redressing the grievance of the petitioner. That being so, this application is disposed of with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education (respondent no.4) and the District Education Officer, Darbhanga (respondent no.5) to look into the aforementioned grievance of the petitioner and do the needful by passing necessary orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that if the petitioner would become entitled for any payment in terms of the aforementioned order of the Director, its consequential payment shall also be made to him in next two months. While this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, 5 it is made clear that the concerned authority including the Director, Secondary Education, must decide the claim of the petitioner with an objective and open mind by taking into account other precedent cases, cited by the petitioner, while passing his reasoned order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/