IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9336 of 2002 SHAMBHU NATH SINGH, son of Late Ram Ekbal Singh, resident of village & P.O. Adauri, Police Station Purnahiya & District Sheohar, at present residing at Sri Nagar, Rajapatti, Dumra Road, Sitamarhi. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Commissioner-cum-Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4.The Director/Depute Director, Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Patna. 5.The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Muzaffarpur. 6.The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi. 7.The District Accounts Officer, Sitamarhi. 8.The District Provident Fund Officer, Sitamarhi. 9.The Headmaster, Rajkiya Middle School, Saidpur, Sitamarhi. ----------- 6 21/6/2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. Counsel for the State with regard to the following prayer made in this writ application:- “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, directing and commanding the respondents concerned to discharge the statutory obligation to compute and to pay the petitioner his full pension with its incidental revised and consequential benefits after having revised and fixed the salary in the pay scale and grade at Rs.12,000/- which the petitioner was drawing at the time of his retirement keeping in view the D.A.O. memo no. 1062 dated 10.11.2001 issued under the authority of the District Accounts Officer, Sitamarhi, the respondent no.7, the entry of which is made into the service book by which the petitioner‟s pay scale had been fixed at Rs. 10,300/- with effect from 3.11.1996 along with remaining G.P.F. and Earned Leave amount etc. with other consequential benefits with statutory interest and to quash the order of recovery of amount paid in excess as, aforesaid since 1.3.89 to till the date of retirement, out of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, as contained in Memo 2 No. Pen-13-Sa-2891 dated 6.3.2002 (Annexure- 3).” would submit that the whole issue has now been decided by the Apex Court in terms of the fundamental Rule 22-C and it has been held that the rules were very much applicable even for the teachers and only because the authorities had no knowledge of its being in force, that would not make the rule obsolete or inapplicable. He has also in this regard contended that the Apex Court has also clarified that on account of such dilemna existing in the mind of the concerned authorities of the Education department, the teachers would not be victimized by way of recovery of any excess amount paid to them. That being so, when there is no opposition to the aforementioned submission by the counsel for the Respondens, this Court would dispose of this writ application exactly in the same term as was decided by the Apex Court in the case of „Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors‟ reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)