IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C No.12754 of 2006, GOVIND SINGH, S/O LATE DEO NARAIN SINGH, HUSBAND OF LATE SUMITRA DEVI, EX. ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL, IMAMGANJ, PALIGANJ, PATNA, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+P.O.-AIYARA, P.S.-KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL. ...............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. 3.SUB.TREASURY OFFICER, DANAPUR. 4.REGIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, VIKRAM, PATNA. 5.TEH DRAWING & DISBURSING OFFICER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, IMAMGANJ, PALIGANJ, PATNA. ..............RESPONDENTS. 02/ 01.07.2011 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State, this Court find that the payment of arrears of difference of salary for the period from 26.07.1971 to 31.03.1973, with interest had already been made as would appear from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, copy whereof was served upon the counsel for the petitioner on 24.08.2007. In fact from Annexure-A, the detailed report of the Headmaster giving full particulars of such payment of all amount paid to the petitioner by way of death cum retirement benefit and difference of salary of his wife had been 2 shown to be paid on different dates ranging from 17.07.2003 to 17.10.2006. Counsel for the petitioner however would submit that such payment in respect of the difference of salary with interest has been calculated up to year-2002, whereas payment was made in the year 2006. Such short payment as claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner is however only by way of oral submissions, inasmuch as, in the writ application filed on 19.10.2006 this fact was suppressed by the petitioner that the payment of Rs. 19,974/- on the head of difference in salary for period 26.6.71 to 31.3.1973 was already made to him on 07.10.2006. In fact this aspect could become clear when the counter affidavit was filed by the Respondents. The petitioner had also the liberty to rebut this aspect for taking a plea for payment of interest beyond 2002 by filing a rejoinder to the counter affidavit but then a period of almost four years has not been sufficient for him to file his rejoinder denying the specific averment of the respondents. 3 In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any merit in the application after the admitted amount on the head of salary has been paid to the petitioner. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and it has to be held as becoming infructuous on account of payment of difference of salary as claimed by the petitioner in this writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)