IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the State's policy decisions regarding service recognition and salary fixation must align with constitutional mandates and prior judicial directives, and that such policies can be uniformly applied to avoid discrimination among employees.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK

Heard the parties.

2. Common facts and identical issues are involved in all the writ petitions and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for recognition of their service from the initial date of their appointments or with effect from the date of selection of the Schools, whichever is later in view of rules, regulations, circulars, orders and report of the Screening Committee and further to give them seniority from the date of their initial appointment and to pay salary with effect from the date of selection of the School.

4. According to the petitioners, in view of policy decision of the State to establish four High Schools in each of the blocks of the erstwhile State of Bihar including one Girls’ High School for eradication of backwardness in the society, initiatives were taken to start the first School in Chotanagpur and Santhal Pargana Division. The said policy decision was notified vide letter no. 1115, dated 27.05.1981. It was decided to complete the target within a period of four years in the Sixth Five Years’ Plan. The Schools which were being run by the public assistance or granted permission for establishment of proposed schools, were given priority. In view of aforesaid policy decision in financial years 1981 – 32, total 150 High Schools (boys and girls) were to be established in view of letter issued vide memo nos. 109 and 182 dated 15.03.1982 and 25.03.1982 respectively. After selection of aforesaid 150 High Schools, vide memo no. 405, dated 19.07.1986, payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the Project Schools selected in the years 1981 – 82 was granted. The basic pay scales of the teachers (trained or untrained) of Project Schools had been fixed as per their qualification. A Policy decision was taken to pay salary to all the trained or untrained teachers working in the said 150 selected Project Schools even appointed much after selection of the Schools till 13.02.1985 by the Managing Committee. The decision was taken in view of a wireless message issued on 14.04.1987.

5. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are aggrieved by non-payment of salary from the date of initial appointment and recognition of their services not from the date of absorption but from the date of initial appointment. Several other issues were raised which were to be decided regarding their service conditions when the Schools were established/taken over and payments were made under different categories that of trained and un-trained teachers.

6. Admittedly petitioners in all these writ petition are trained and their services were recognized after taken over of the schools. In view of policy decision of the State, they were given recognition from the date of their absorption i.e. 01.01.1989 and not from the date of their initial appointment and salary also was fixed and paid from 01.01.1989 in view of clear decision and direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court and taking into consideration the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court and thereafter report of the Alam Committee. The matter travelled up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the State has come up with a policy decision fixing cut-off date of absorption as 01.01.1989 and also payment and fixation of salary from 01.01.1989. Petitioners are aggrieved by the said policy decision of the State and hence they have knocked door of this Court.

7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners strenuously urges that the policy decision of the State in not granting recognition to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and non-fixation of the salary, is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the mandates of law. The learned counsel further argues that in view of Judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in