31.03.1993 and claimed 63,080/- towards arrears. It was an admitted fact that sum of 45,891/- had been paid and there seems still a grievance because the calculation made by the petitioner assumed that he was entitled to higher pay admissible to Block Primary Education Officer w.e.f.04.07.1979. This was pointed out by the judgment debtor to be untenable since even the plaintiff's own senior placed in Sr. No.1 had been promoted as BPEO only w.e.f.05.02.1986. Consequently, the decree holder was not entitled to the amount as claimed in the petition. More particularly it was stated that he had been granted selection grade w.e.f. 01.03.1959 and there was no scope for providing for any additional increment w.e.f. 01.03.1959. In the calculation made by the plaintiff that he was also claiming a proficiency step up in the grade of BPEO w.e.f. 04.07.1979 was also impermissible since the consideration for the post as BPEO itself was possible only from 05.02.1986. The calculation given by the plaintiff also contained a reference of alleged entitlement to leave encashment of 40,101/-. The State, on the other hand, paid 10,946/-. The service book revealed that there were 71 days of earned leave left. The calculations given by the decree holder were shown to be incorrect by reference to the fact that the plaintiff was on the vocational side and enjoyed summer vacations working as Central Head Teacher and hence, he could not have obtained a double benefit of claimed leave more than what he had already availed during the summer vacations. Yet another head of dispute was the different of payment of DCRG. This was also on account of the fact that he was claiming is promotion w.e.f. 04.07.1979, which was already rejected as untenable in view of the facts pleaded by the State that the plaintiff
