Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the memo dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure-8) as well as the memo dated 09.06.2006 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent no.3, District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Educational Officer, Pakur by which the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced and a direction has been issued to the Area Education Officer i.e. respondent no.4 to reduce the pay scale by lowering down and further prayer is for direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of reduce pay scale and for fixation of the pension on revised pay scale.

2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Matric Trained Teacher on 16.04.1980. Subsequently, the pay scale of the petitioner has been fixed as I.Sc. Trained teacher w.e.f. From 01.09.1982 and B.Sc. Trained scale w.e.f. 01.04.1983 as per Annexure-2 dated 24.05.1983 to the writ petition. Thereafter, vide memo dated 21.04.1997, the respondent has partially rectified and sanctioned B.Sc. Trained pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.1982. It has been averred in the writ application that vide memo dated 10.09.1997 the higher pay of the petitioner has been fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.09.1994 on completion of 12 years of services. The respondent no.3 directed all the concerned Area Education officers to reduce the pay scale of teachers including the petitioner by lowering his pay scale which the petitioner has obtained much earlier as per Annexure-5 to the writ application and the explanation was called for, from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other teachers submitted their explanation before the respondent no.4. Again, the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced in the light of memo dated 09.06.2006 as per Annexure-8 to the writ application. It has further been disclosed in the writ application that some of the aggrieved teachers being affected by Annexure-5 dated 09.06.2006 preferred writ application bearing W.P.(S) No.5645 of 2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.06.2012 directing the respondent authority to pass an order in the light of order passed in a case of similar situated person and subsequent thereon the grievance of said writ petitioner have been redressed by the respondent authority. On the same ground, one teacher namely Jitendra Kumar Singh filed W.P.(S) No.4970 of 2012 which was also disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2012 in the light of W.P.(S) No.5645 of 2008. The petitioner after attaining the age of 60 years, superannuated from service w.e.f 31.01.2014 but the petitioners claim has not been redressed. Due to inaction of the respondents in not ventilating his grievances, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has knocked the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter be remanded back to the concerned District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Pakur for considering the grievance of the petitioner.

4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 has been filed wherein it has been submitted that earlier the pay scale of the petitioner has been fixed by the District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj without any prior approval of the District Education Committee, Sahibganj. The aforesaid matter came in to the light of the District Education Committee, Pakur under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur in the meeting held on 06.06.2006 and accordingly the said committee has cancelled the earlier revised pay scale sanctioned by the then District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj without any approval of the committee. The respondent no.3 being the member of the District Education Committee, Pakur and Secretary of said committee has complied the aforesaid decision of the District Education Committee, Pakur. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur is to obey and implement the order of the decision of the committee, so the memo dated 06.06.2006 as well as memo dated 31.12.2006 issued under the signature of the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur is in compliance of the decision of the District Education Committee, Pakur, which is neither illegal nor unjustified. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for arrear of higher pay scale as no approval was taken by the Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj.

5. Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, learned J.C. to S.C.V for the respondents-State has submitted that if the petitioner files a fresh representation, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit in accordance with law.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this writ application is disposed of, in the light of decision taken in W.P.(S) No. 5645 of 2008 passed by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2012, with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh detailed representation before the respondent no. 3, District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Educational Officer, Pakur within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondent no.3 shall consider the same in the light of the order passed by this Court and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and decision taken thereof be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.