Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, J.
CWJC No.2619 of 2020
(9.9.2024)
Satya Prakash ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
School Laws – Salary – Non-payment – There is no negative equality – If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality – Compassion cannot be a ground for issuance of mandamus and/or direction for an unfortunate person, who had obtained B.Ed. degree from an unrecognized institution – If a decision is taken to grant relief to petitioner on the ground of compassion that he was suspended in midway of service and, thereafter, superannuated during suspension period and his suspension was revoked from date of his superannuation that would be encouraging and condoning establishment of unauthorized institutions and is tantamount to an unwarranted exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court – Matter referred to larger Bench for considering, (I) Whether degree obtained from Sogra College of Education, Biharsharif, Nalanda is valid or not, in view of fact that institution is unrecognized? (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to be given benefit of ACP/Pravaran Vetanman and pensionary benefits as a Graduate trained teacher or untrained teacher? (III) Whether writ petitioner is entitled under law for the arrears of salary claimed as a Graduate trained teacher? (Paras 24, 25 and 27)
Judicial Discipline – Law has to be both certain and uniform – Certainty of law, consistency of rulings and decision once rendered must bind later cases – Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline – When there is conflict between two Division Bench decisions and there is no subsequent decision of Apex Court on that point, matter has to be referred to Chief Justice for constitution of larger Bench. (Paras 26 and 27)
Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ/direction for commanding the respondents to pay salary which is withheld with effect from August, 2018 and suspension allowance from 7.9.2019 along with other consequential benefits including benefits of ACP/Pravaran Vetanman.
3. During pendency of this writ petition, an interlocutory application, bearing I.A. No.1 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner to amend the prayer portion, which was allowed vide order dated 15.07.2024.
4. The brief fact emanates from the case record is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Project Sadholal Shah Arya Girls Inter School, Akbarpur, Nawada (hereinafter referred to as the “School”) on 26.12.1985 vide appointment letter dated 22.12.1985. The petitioner’s school was taken over as a second phase project school. The petitioner was graduate at the time of his initial appointment and, subsequently, he completed his Bachelor of Education (in short, B.Ed.) Training course in session 1988-89 and accordingly, he passed B.Ed. examination in the year 1990 and, on 13.03.1991, the petitioner became a Graduate Trained Teacher. Vide Government Letter No. 142 dated 04.02.1989, a guideline was issued for recognition of service of teaching and non-teaching staff working in the second phase project school.
5. It further appears that in the light of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment dated 03.01.2006, a three men committee was constituted and, upon recommendation of the said committee, the services of the petitioner was recognized with effect from 24.06.2008 and the salary was also paid to him with effect from 01.01.1989. The petitioner was also granted benefits of senior pay scale, after completion of 12 years of his service, with effect from 01.01.2003. Therefore, the petitioner approached before the respondent authorities for payment of salary, which was withheld from August 2018 but, without assigning any reason, surprisingly, vide memo no. 1941 dated 07.09.2019 issued under the signature of respondent no.2, the petitioner was suspended and a department proceeding was initiated against him in which charge-sheet was filed on 07.09.2019. However, the said departmental proceeding is still pending.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner joined on 26.12.1985 in the School and, thereafter, he continued in service till the date of his suspension. It is further contended that after completion of 12 years service, he was granted benefits of senior pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2003.
7. It is further contended that while the petitioner was in service, all of a sudden, the payment of salary of the petitioner was stopped from August, 2018, questioning the validity of his B.Ed. Degree but at no point of time, neither any notice was issued and/or served nor any departmental proceeding was initiated against him before withholding the salary.
8. It is further contended that petitioner superannuated on 29.02.2020 and his suspension was revoked with effect from 29.02.2020.
9. It is also contended that similarly situated persons, namely, Bineet Prasad Singh and Surendra Prasad Sinha, whose salaries were also withheld questioning the validity of their B.Ed. Degree had moved before this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 11116 of 2018 and C.W.J.C. No. 864 of 2020, respectively and the learned co-ordinate Benches of this Court have been pleased to dispose of the writ applications with a direction to pay the salary for the period, for which they have not been paid and in compliance of the order of this Court, they have been paid their salary.
10. It is further contended that this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 484 of 2023 vide order dated 20.06.2024 has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner, Vinod Kumar on the ground that the case of Vinod Kumar is squarely covered by the judgm
The court reinforced that salaries must be paid to teachers based on regularized appointments, rejecting any arbitrary withholding by the State as per established constitutional rights, regardless of....
The court reaffirmed that judicial decisions regarding employment rights must be respected, and that grounds for termination or denial of appointment must be substantiated with valid evidence, partic....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- from the date of her appointment, the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission,....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
