The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for orders to contain proper reasoning and adhere to the principle of natural justice, as well as the binding effect of a similar precedent in a related writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the following prayer has been made:-

(i) For quashing of the general order passed by the District Superintendent of Education cum Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Pakur, whereby and whereunder, he has been instructed on the basis of the decision taken by the District Education Establishment Committee, by which, the pay scale of the husband of the writ petitioner has been re-fixed with a decision to recover the excess amount already paid.

2. The fact leading to filing of this writ petition is, as per the pleading, made that the District Education Establishment Committee has taken a decision on the basis of some irregularity in fixation of the pay scale.

3. The decision was taken to rectify the same and recover the excess amount already by complying the principle of natural justice, thereafter, in consequence of the aforesaid general decision, the concerned D.S.E., Pakur has come out with the list containing the names of 277 teachers, which includes the petitioner also.

4. The pay scale was re-fixed that led the writ petitioner to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

5. The writ petitioner annexed several orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, appended as Anexure-7 to the paper book (page-39) and Annexure-10, by which, while disposing of the writ petition, liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to approach to the authority for consideration of the case.

6. It has been submitted that the cases were considered and the positive decision was taken by recalling the order of re-fixation as also the recovery. The reliance has also been placed in an order passed in W.P.(S) No.5938 of 2022 (Shankar Prasad Mandal & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) dated 03.10.2023 by the coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein, the general order as contained in memo no.741 dated 09.06.2006 and consequential order dated 18.08.2008 contained in memo no.1143 has been challenged.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to paragraph-9 of the aforesaid order has submitted that the aforesaid orders i.e., order dated 09.06.2006 and 18.08.2008 have been quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondent-D.S.E., Pakur to issue the order restoring the pay scale of the petitioners to which they are entitled to and further to complete the entire exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, this writ petition is also fit to be allowed.

9. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned G.A.-I appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand is fair enough to submit by going through the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5938 of 2022 that the issue involved in the present writ petition was the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition.

10. He, after going through paragraph-9 of the aforesaid order has submitted that the instant writ petition may be allowed in view of the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5938 of 2022.

11. Heard leaned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleading made in the writ petition including the annexures contained therein.

12. Two orders have been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.5938 of 2022, i.e., order dated 09.06.2006 (Annexure-2) and 18.08.2008 (Annexure-6).

13. This Court has perused the order dated 09.06.2006 (annexure-2, page-32), wherefrom, it is evident that based upon the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur in its meeting dated 06.06.2006, the decision was taken to re-fix the pay scale and recover the excess amount paid after following the principle of natural justice.

14. This Court has found therefrom that why such decision was taken, is not available, however, it has been referred therein that on the basi