Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Sushil Kumar son of Late Yogendra Prasad Sah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2005
Decided on : 24-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajit Kumar, Miss Aprajita Bhardwaj, Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Mr. Ishank Ranjan, Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohit
IMPORTANT POINT
Vested rights, once conferred, cannot be revoked by subsequent statutory rules applied retroactively, as established by the interpretation of Article 226 and relevant case law.
Headnote:
[Writ Petition] - [B.Sc. Trained Scale Cancellation] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers’ Promotion Rules, 1993] - [The court examined the legality of the cancellation of the B.Sc. Trained Scale granted to the petitioners, emphasizing that once a right has been accrued based on prior executive instructions, it cannot be revoked by subsequent statutory rules. The court interpreted the provisions of the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers’ Promotion Rules, 1993, particularly Rule 15, which preserves rights accrued before the rules came into effect. The court's decision was influenced by precedents that established the principle that vested rights cannot be taken away retroactively.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, B.Sc. Trained Science Teachers, challenged the cancellation of their B.Sc. Trained Scale, which had been granted based on a prior government circular. They argued that their rights, once accrued, could not be revoked by subsequent rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the B.Sc. Trained Scale was arbitrary and illegal, as the petitioners had a vested right to the scale based on prior executive decisions. The court emphasized that the subsequent rules could not retroactively affect rights that had already been established.
Issues: Whether the benefit granted to the petitioners based on executive instructions can be revoked by the retrospective application of statutory rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a right has been accrued, it cannot be taken away by subsequent rules that are applied retroactively. The interpretation of vested rights and the implications of repealing statutes were central to the court's reasoning.
Final Decision: The court quashed the cancellation order and allowed the writ petition, reinstating the B.Sc. Trained Scale for the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the direction has been sought for setting aside the office order as contained in Memo No.550/Pakur dated 12.05.2005 issued under the signature of the Respondent No.6, i.e., District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, whereunder the B.Sc. Trained Scale granted to the petitioners vide office order dated 23.08.2004, has been cancelled.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition which needs to be enumerated, read hereunder as :-
It is the case of the petitioners that both the petitioners are B.Sc. Trained Science Teachers posted in Middle School Dhanuspuja, Pakur and Middle School Murgadang Hiranpur, Pakur respectively and they were appointed as Science Teacher vide order dated 12.04.1983 and 18.04.1983 respectively they were granted scale of Rs.535/- of Matric untrained scale.
3. In the appointment letters of the petitioners it was clearly mentioned that on and from the date they passed the teachers training examination they will be given the scale of pay and further it is stated that their appointment was made in consonance of letter No.50 dated 20-02-1981.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the aforementioned letter it has been clearly stated that the vacancy was only for two categories of posts namely I.Sc. Trained and B.Sc. Trained and the petitioners were appointed against the vacancies of B.Sc. Trained posts.
5. Though the petitioners were appointed in the year 1983 and were to be governed by the letter No.3629 dated 20.11.1982 (Annexure-3) yet they were being paid salary in terms of letter No.50 dated 20.02.1981.
6. In the meantime, in the year 1985 both the petitioners were terminated along with many others by the Government on the ground that their services were not required.
7. The petitioner No.1 had challenged the aforementioned decision of the Government before the Patna High Court in CWJC No.298/85 wherein the Patna High Court passed an interim order on 25.01.1985 and allowed the petitioner to work.
8. The petitioner No.2 had moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court after exhausting his remedies before the Patna High Court in SLP(Civil) No.429 of 1988 which was ultimately allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court with a direction that all the teachers shall have the credit of past services both in regard to payment of salary as also seniority and other service benefits.
9. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court the services of both the petitioners along with many others were reinstated and regularised.
10. It is the further case of the petitioners that both the petitioners, were given Matric Untrained Scale even when they were appointed as Science Teacher having B.Sc. qualification. Since the petitioners were even not getting the B.Sc. untrained scale, they had represented alongwith several others before the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna and ultimately against the said discrepancies, CWJC No.905/1983 was filed by several teachers in the Hon'ble Patna High Court and pursuant to the judgment and order in CWJC No.905/1983 the teachers having B.Sc. qualification along with these petitioners were all granted B.Sc. untrained scale since the days of their initial appointment, vide order dated 28.11.1990 by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar.
11. The petitioners, in terms of their appointment letter, had to obtain the training and thereafter they were also required to pass the Training examination within a period of 3 years and on obtaining training they had also passed the said Training examination in the year 1995.
12. It is the case of the petitioners that since the Respondents/Authorities did not accede to the requests and prayers of the petitioners for granting the B.Sc. trained scale, they had no option but to approach this Court which they did by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.547/2003 before this Court and this court on being
