Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MADHURESH PRASAD, J.
Ranjan Kumar and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5719 of 2020
Decided On : 08-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Mr. Pranav Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey.
Headnote:
School Laws – Recovery – Recall of senior scale granted to Teachers appointed after 31.12.1995 – Order dated 17.05.2019 under which excess payments were made to petitioners, clearly stipulated recovery in case it was found to have been paid in excess of entitlement of respective petitioners – Petitioners had been put on notice regarding Authorities retaining their right to make recoveries in these circumstances – Time lapse between grant of undue/excess benefits and order rectifying same is less than even one year – It is also not the case of petitioners that they have been made to discharge duties of teachers (senior scale), of any higher post – Petitioners are still in service – It is not the case of any of petitioners that they are on verge of retirement or that any of them have retired – Admitted case of petitioners is that substantial amounts paid in excess of entitlement has already been recovered – Fact that petitioners were not entitled to senior scale being admitted, irresistible legal implication would be withdrawal of senior scale – Only after calculation and payment of entitlement of petitioners if authorities find that any of petitioners are still liable for recovery any amount, they would be at liberty to make such recovery in equated monthly instalments, spread over a reasonable period. (Paras 21 to 27, 31 and 43)
Natural Justice – Principle of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula – Court of law does not insist on compliance with a useless formality – Where result of compliance with principle of natural justice would result in no change and where no prejudice is shown to be caused by non-compliance with principle of natural justice, same may also not be applied. (Para 32)
(2015) 4 SCC 334; 1995 Supp (3) SCC 722; (2007) 4 SCC 54 – Distinguished.
(2016)14 SCC 267 – Applied.
(2009)3 SCC 475; (2006) 8 SCC 647 – Relied.
JUDGMENT :
MADHURESH PRASAD, J.
1. The matter has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing.
2. Learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual court proceedings from their homes, all with the aid of audio visual technology.
3. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey AAG XV for the State.
4. The petitioners’ claim in the writ proceedings is for quashing of memo no. 645 dated 05.05.2020 issued by the District Education Officer, Aurangabad recalling the senior scale granted to the Teachers appointed after 31.12.1995. Basis of the said decision is the letter issued by the Director (Primary Education) to all the District Education Officer under memo No. 20.04.2020 bearing no. 432. The same is also challenged in the instant proceedings.
5. Over the past several dates, parties have argued at length. In today’s proceedings, however, they have found common ground. The stand taken by Mr. Pandey, counsel for the State, was that the petitioners were appointed against Matric Trained Teacher posts having the higher qualification of Intermediate or Graduation etc. Their appointment, however, was without training, which petitioners have acquired subsequently on different dates. He further submits upon instructions that on completing 12 years from the date of acquiring training petitioners would be entitled to the next higher scale of pay, and consequential payments.
6. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel has drawn attention of the Court towards the chart containing the date of completion of teachers training in respect of all the petitioner which is contained at Annexure R/3. He submits that in view of the submissions of the State Counsel regarding entitlement of the petitioners to next higher scale 12 years after acquiring the qualification of training, the petitioners, now would anyway be entitled to the next higher scale as they have completed 12 years service subsequent to the date on which they acquired training. Petitioners are agreeable to avail such benefits, he, therefore, does not wish to press the instant writ proceedings in respect of the relief for quashing of the memo dated 05.05.2020 or 20.04.2020, impugned in the instant writ proceedings.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the situation that emerges is that petitioners and State are in agreement that the petitioners will receive the next higher scale with effect from the date they have completed, or shall complete 12 years service, post acquisition of training. To this extent, there is no dispute and, therefore, in terms of this consensus between the parties entitlement of the petitioners for grant of next higher scale/senior scale is resolved and the authorities, consequently, would be under an obligation to work out entitlement of the petitioners as per details in respect of the date of acquisition of training contained in Annexure R/3 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, and consequential payment of dues that may be found admissible.
8. The dispute is only whether the financial benefits of senior scale which has been granted in terms of the earlier Finance Department Resolution dated 18.12.1989 bearing Resolution No. 6022, which was not applicable to the petitioners, can be recovered from the petitioners, or not.
9. Mr. Giri submits that for some periods the petitioners were granted the senior scale under the office order dated 17.05.2019 issued by the District Programme Officer (Establishment) Aurangabad (Annexure-8). The said grant was without any misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioners and, therefore, the recovery of amounts paid pursuant to Annexure-8, would burden the petitioners for no fault on their part. It is also submitted that petitioners have not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before the recovery was made under office order dated 30.04.2020 issued by the District Education Officer
