IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16665 of 2011 Murari Prasad S/O Late Suraj Prasad R/O Bank Colony, Gola Road, Lane No.-5, Danapur, District-Patna Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 2. The Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 3. The Director (Youth-Welfare) Cum Deputy Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 4. The District Education Officer, Patna 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna ----------- 02. 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is a retired employee who was initially engaged as a National Discipline Scheme Instructor (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘N.D.S.I.’) on 17.9.1963. Subsequently on transfer he came to the State of Bihar. His service was absorbed in the cadre of Physical Education Teacher on 1.9.1973. There were many rounds of litigation of similarly situated persons on many issues and enactment based on which the Department of Art, Culture and Youth Welfare, Patna, issued Notification dated 2.12.2009 which is Annexure-1 to the writ application. The said notification itself will indicate about directions given therein which form the basis of background for issuance of Annexure-1. From perusal of Annexure-1 and from the list of the names of such persons it appears that name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.39. Notification indicates the revised pay 2 scale which came to be given to the petitioner by virtue of time bound promotion. But this notification has remained only on paper as money has not accrued to the petitioner so far. The petitioner has approached the Director of the Department concerned, i.e. Art, Culture and Youth Department, respondent no.3 raising his grievance as would be evident from perusal of Annexures 3 and 4. Since it seems to be a case of inaction on the part of the respondents and since the claim of the petitioner is based on the notification issued by the respondent in Annexure-1, the Court fails to understand the impediment which has been created. The writ application is disposed of with a direction upon respondent no.3 that taking cognizance of their notifications contained in Annexures 1 and 2 coupled with the demand of the petitioner based on the two notifications, his claim would be settled within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)