Recorded statements of counsel in a judgment are conclusive and binding on parties; cannot be contradicted or reopened in appellate proceedings due to public policy and judicial decorum.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

I.A. No. 02 of 2024

The present interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 92 days in preferring the present appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. I.A. No. 02/2024 stands allowed.

Re.: L.P.A.No. 713 of 2024

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The present intra court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 14725 of 2023.

6. The writ petitioners (respondents herein) had challenged Clause-6 of Resolution No. 970 dated 31.08.2013 issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar, whereby teaching and non-teaching employees of Non- Government recognized aided Sanskrit Schools/Madarsas appointed on or after 15.02.2011 were placed on fixed salary. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 985 of 2015 (Imran Alam & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), allowed the writ petition and quashed the relevant portion of the Resolution with consequential benefits.

7. The learned Writ Court, after hearing the parties, passed the following orders:

“2. Both the counsels agree with this fact that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15299 of 2015 and connected petitions wherein the Division Bench has relied upon its earlier judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 985 of 2015 decided on 27.03.2019 whereby the Memo, dated August, 2013, filed by the respondents was quashed. It would be apposite to quote the order passed by the Division Bench on 27.03.2019 in C.W.J.C. No. 15299 of 2015:

“These five writ petitions related to the claim of salary by such teacher who are appointed in Sanskrit Schools and who claim to have been recognized prior to 15.02.2011 and are amongst the 531 schools who were on the grant-in-aid list prior to the aforesaid date. These petitioners have also been deprived of the benefits to which they were entitled by the impugned resolution dated 31st August, 2013 which has already been quashed by us today to the extent indicated in our judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 985 of 2015 and, therefore, the petitioners would also be entitled to the same benefits on the same terms.”

3. In view of the above, the petitioner too would be entitled to the regular pay scale as he was appointed as Sanskrit School Teachers, which was recognized prior to 15.02.2011.

4. Accordingly, Annexure-P/4 and the Resolution of the Education Department dated 31.08.2013 (Annexure-P/3) is hereby quashed.

5. This writ petition, is accordingly, allowed with all consequential benefits.”

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that against the judgment rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 985 of 2015, the State had preferred Civil Review No. 295 of 2019, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, and thereafter a restoration application being M.J.C. No. 2022 of 2023 has been filed and is pending consideration. It is submitted that in view of the pendency of the restoration application, the learned Single Judge ought to have kept the writ petition in abeyance.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the issue stood concluded by binding Division Bench judgments and the learned Single Judge merely followed the settled position of law. It is submitted that the impugned order does not warrant interference.

10. The limited issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, having been rendered upon agreement of learn