Timely training delays by the state do not negate teachers' rights to trained pay scales; benefits must align with prior judicial directives.

JUDGMENT

Date : 23-12-2025

Heard the parties.

2. This batch of writ petitioners was duly appointed as untrained Panchayat/Prakhand/Nagar Teachers in the year 2013- 2016 by the competent authority. Despite having their appointments been made with a clear stipulations that the petitioners shall be sent for teachers training to their respective training colleges, they had been sent belatedly. Even though the petitioners have duly appeared in the examination, but their results have been published with a further delay and thereby, depriving them from trained scale for a pretty long time, without there being any fault on their part.

3. Identical issue has come up for consideration before this Court in case of Kishor Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 16165 of 2019, which came to be disposed off on 09.08.2019, by observing as follows:-

“Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director, Primary Education to consider the case of the petitioners and grant the benefit from the date of completion of training to the petitioners as the lapses on the part of the respondents cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of trained pay scale. It is now well settled that one cannot take advantage of his own wrong in defeating the genuine claim. Chief Justice Chhagla of Bombay High Court in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City : AIR 1954 Bom. 232 has occasion to settle the principle on the similar line there is judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar : AIR 1989 SC 1133. The respondents have to take decision granting benefit of trained scale to the petitioners with effect from the date of completion of their training i.e. May, 2017. Necessary decision in this regard with all consequential monetary benefits must be taken by the Director, Secondary Education within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.”

4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar No. 1, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that identically situated persons also approached this Court in CWJC No. 7938 of 2020 (Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) with other analogous writ petitions, which came to be disposed off in the light of the aforenoted decisions on 01.02.2021. Aggrieved with the order passed by learned Single Judge, the State has unsuccessfully preferred letters patent appeal bearing LPA No. 456 of 2021, which came to be dismissed on 03.04.2025.

5. Referring to the aforenoted decisions, it is submitted that despite the issue having been settled up to the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners have not been accorded the identical relief in the light of the Bihar State Litigation Policy especially Clause 4 (c) (i) thereof. Hence, the present application.

6. Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate for the State though did not confront with the legal position, however it is apprised to this Court that against the order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 456 of 2021, the State has preferred SLP (Diary) No. 66035 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025.

7. At this juncture, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that to his instruction there is no stay of the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also filed a detailed representation before the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna but, till date, no decision h