IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7059 of 2011
SURYA NARAIN SINGH sonof late Bibhuti Singh,
resident of mohalla Askaminini Nagar, Bikramganj, Ward
no. 13, P.O. + P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas, ...
... Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal
Secretary, Department of Human Resources
Development, Government of Bihar, Patna,
2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, at Sasaram,
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at
Sasaram,
4. The District Treasury Officer, Rohtas, at Sasaram,
... ... Respondents
For the Petitioner: M/s Sudama Singh and
Rajani Kant Singh, Advocates
For the State: Mr. Ashok Kr. Pathak, AC to GP XI
-----------
2 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
The petitioner seeks direction for fixation of revised
pay scale of the petitioner according to the 6th Pay Revision
and thereafter for fixing his pension along with other
admissible consequential benefits with statutory interest, if
payable.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has
retired as Assistant Teacher on 30.09.2007 from Middle
School, Bhalunidham and, thereafter, he represented before
the District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram
on 17.09.2010 for the grant of aforesaid relief, a copy of
2
which has been appended as Annexure 1, however, nothing
has been communicated to him as yet. Thus, it is contended
that the authorities may be directed to take a decision upon the
aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State raises no objection to
that.
As a result, this writ application is disposed of with
a direction to the respondent no. 3, the District Superintendent
of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram, to take a decision upon the
representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within
a period of two months from the date of filing of fresh
representation along with a copy of this order and such
decision taken upon the representation of the petitioner should
be communicated to him. The petitioner would be at liberty to
raise all the points which he has taken in this application. It is
also made clear that if the petitioner’s claim is found to be
correct and a decision is taken for payment of some amount,
the same should be paid to him within three months from the
date such decision taken by the respondent no. 3. If the
dispute still exists, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek a
remedy again which is permissible in law.
SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)