IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9818 of 1996 BRAHMA DEO MAHTO Son of Late Biku Mahto, resident of village and P.O. Paharpur Diara/P.S. Balia District- Begusarai.. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai. .. .. .. Respondents. ----------- 6 25.11.2008 The petitioner is a Physical teacher who superannuated on 31.7.2005. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to get Matric Trained Scale which he was receiving till February, 1992. Several writ applications have been filed in which similar questions have been raised. Two writ applications CWJC No. 2180 of 1984 and CWJC No. 2186 of 1984 were filed and disposed of by order dated 22nd January, 1991. The writ petitioners challenged the order passed by the District Education Officer reducing the scale of the petitioners to Matric untrained. It is said that the reduction in scale was because of instructions issued vide letter no. 197 dated 17.2.1981. This Court held that the instruction issued vide letter no. 197 dated 17.2.1981 would be prospective in nature and the scale of the petitioners 2 could not be reduced. Another writ application was filed in the year 1994 by one Vinod Kumar Singh. The judgment is reported in 1995(2) PLJR. In this case too the challenge was similar. The petitioner challenged the decision of the District Education Officer reducing his scale on the basis of letter no. 197 dated 17.2.1981. This Court held in the case of Vinod Kumar Singh that the qualification of a Physical Untrained Teacher would be different to other teachers who had received training, and as such held that the physical untrained teachers were not entitled to the pay scale of trained teachers and till they acquired the requisite qualification. The Court had referred to an order passed by another bench in the case in Jagdanand Singh & Ors. and deferred from the view of the learned Singh Judge as that order was passed without a counter affidavit on behalf of the State Government. The judgment reported in Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar was challenged by the petitioner by 3 filing a Letters Patent Appeal No. 703 of 1995 disposed of on 20th January, 2003. A division bench held that there was no error committed by the learned Single Judge in not granting the reliefs to the petitioner. It also appears that the order passed in CWJC No. 2180 of 1984 and 2186 of 1984 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in the case of Vinod Kumar Singh as a result of which the matter was referred to a division bench in CWJC No. 1722 of 20014 by order dated 27.2.2001. This matter is still pending to be heard by the division bench. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits apart from the conflicting judgments inasmuch that the judgment in Vinod Kumar Singh’s case does not refer to the earlier judgments passed in CWJC No. 2180 of 1984 and analogous cases, there is a resolution by the Finance Department which is numbered as Resolution No. 6022 F (2) dated 18th December, 1989. This resolution refers to the scales of pay of teachers of schools taken over and under 4 the administrative control of the Department of Human Resources Department. The schedule II of the said resolution provides the scale of pays admissible to teachers with different academic qualifications. I shall refer only to 1A of the said schedule II which reads as follows: “Matric Trained / Intermediate Untrained / Intermediate Trained / Graduate Untrained, the scale recommended is Rs. 1200-2400/-.” I may point out that the scale of Graduate Untrained is equal to Matric Trained. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution Mr. Shahi submits that the petitioner being a Graduate would be at least entitled to Matric Trained scale. It is further stated that this resolution has not been noticed by any of the Court’s hearings similar matters as a result of which there has been some difficulty in interpretion of the law and provisions concerning the scale to be granted to untrained Physical Teachers working in Primary schools. In the result, the matter 5 is remanded to the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department to consider the judgments and the resolution and pass an order as far as it concerns the case of the petitioner which is slightly different to the cases of the other petitioners before this Court in the earlier writ applications referred to above. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department may consult the Finance Department while passing the said order. The order may be passed preferably within a period of four months. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)