IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 6139 of 2007 1 Ram Ashis Tiwary, son of late Paras Nath Tiwari, resident of village – Karari, P S – Sheosagar, District – Rohtas 2 Chandan Bhusan Rai, son of late Sidheshwar Rai, resident of village – East Belari, P S – Natwar, District – Rohtas 3 Satendra Kumar Choudhari, son of late Ram Chandra Choudhari, resident of village – Boknaw, P S – Sanjhauli, District – Rohtas 4 Markandey Singh, son of late Parmanand Singh, resident of village – English Chapha, P S – Sanjhouli, District – Rohtas - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2 The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3 The DDC –cum- Chairman, Establishment Committee, Rohtas 4 The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas 5 The District Education Officer, Rohtas - Respondents *** For the petitioners : M/s Arabind Nath Pandey, Rang Nath Pandey, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr Shashi Bhushan Kr, AC to GP 15 *** 7 31.03.2011 The petitioners were employed as Assistant Teachers on compassionate ground. At the time of their appointment itself, it was found that though the minimum requirement of Matric Trained, they were Graduates. They have come to this Court with a grievance that the District Establishment Committee granted them senior pay scale upon their completion of 12 years of service within which period they had also done their Teachers’ Training Course. Notwithstanding this sanction and this payment, suddenly respondent No 4, the District Superintendent of Education stopped this payment of senior scale. The plea of the State is that the senior scale payment can only be sanctioned upon petitioners’ completing 12 years of service as at least Matric Trained Teacher and, 2 therefore, this period of 12 years would be reckoned from the time when they completed their training and not from their initial appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the Resolution of the Finance Department dated 13.12.1989, relevant portion whereof is Annexure-1 and is quoted hereunder : Finance Department Resolution No 3/PAR 01-3/89-6022F (2) dated 18-12-1989 SUBJECT : Revision of the scale of pay of teachers of schools taken over (Rajkiyakrit) and under the Administrative control of department of Human Resources Development. … … … … … … … … … … … … … SCHDULE II Designation Revised Pay scale Matric trained/Intermediate untrained/ Intermediate trained/Graduate untrained teacher Rs 1200 - 2040 Senior scale (After 12 years) Rs 1400 - 2600 Selection scale (After 12 years in senior scale and attainment of Qualifications laid down for Trained Graduate teachers Rs 1640 - 2900 Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly submits that petitioners were Graduate Untrained Teachers but were appointed in place of Matric Trained Teachers because their appointments were on compassionate ground. From the date of appointment, they were in the pay scale of Rs 1200 to Rs 2040/-. In the meantime, they got requisite training but considering the length of their service being 12 years, they were then granted senior scale of Rs 1400/- to Rs 2600/- which was subject to revisions. Learned counsel for the State submits, with reference to Government Circular, that a person, in a particular grade, could not 3 shift to that grade from a higher grade merely as a consequence of training. In my view, he is correct but that is not relevant for the present case. A reference to the Schedule, as noted above, would show that a Graduate Untrained Teacher or Intermediate Untrained Teacher or an Intermediate Trained Teacher or Matric Trained Teacher are all in one grade. The training would, thus, not shift them, if their appointment is under Matric Trained Teachers. The pay scale only changes by virtue of time bound incentive. By giving senior scale after 12 years of service, the grade does not change. They remain in the same grade but at a senior pay scale. Thus, the training aspect is inconsequential. In my view, therefore, the District Establishment Committee correctly understood the situation and correctly granted senior scale of pay to the petitioners upon completion of 12 years of service and it was wrongly interfered by the District Superintendent of Education by his order dated 22.07.2006 contained in Annexure-6. Therefore, I have no option but to quash Annexure-6 and consequently even Annexure-9, the order of the Director, Primary Education, Katihar also cannot be sustained for the reasons aforesaid. If that be so then there is no question of recovering the amount paid rather consequential directions are issued to pay any amount withheld as a consequence of two impugned orders. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)