IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8751 of 2011 RAVINDRA PANDEY son of Sri Madhusudan Pandey, resident of village Sakrauda, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda, at presently working as Assistant Teacher, Primary-cum-Middle Sanskrit School Sonkukra, Bhojpur, P.S. Masaurhi, District Patna … … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, 2. The District Education Officer, Patna, 3. The Secretary Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, East Boring Canal Road, Patna, 4. The Chairman Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, East Boring Canal Road, Patna, 5. The Head Master, Primary-cum-Middle Sanskrit School, Sonkukra, Bhojpur, P.O. Masaurhi, District- Patna…. ….Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharmandera Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Asst. Counsel to G.P.X ……. 2 17.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents for making payment of difference of salary with effect from 17.04.1995 to 31.03.2008. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that vide Annexure 1, the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, 2 Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as “Board”) had taken a decision on 15.03.2007 granting scale of Matric Trained to the petitioner with effect from 17.04.1995. The aforesaid decision was communicated to the respondent no. 2 by the respondent no. 3 on 30th of October, 2007 vide letter as contained in Annexure 2. The Headmaster of the concerned school has also forwarded the calculation chart for payment of difference of salary vide Annexure 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no decision has been taken by the respondent no.2, the District Education Officer, Patna as yet with regard to the issue in question. However, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ of mandamus without approaching the concerned authority. In above view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent no. 2 within three weeks along with a copy of this order. On such representation being filed, the respondent no. 2 shall take a decision in accordance with law considering the decision of the Board as contained in Annexure 1 and the communication to the respondent no. 2 vide Annexure 2 within three months. A 3 copy of the decision taken by the respondent no. 2 should also be communicated to the petitioner. In terms of the above direction/observation, this writ application stands disposed of. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)