IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11843 of 2006 HARI NARAYAN CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAM DAYAL CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PATORI, P.S. MORE, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, BAPU SMARAK HIGH SCHOOL, KUSAUTHAR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ……………………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DARBHANGA. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 6. THE HEADMASTER, BAPU SMARAK HIGH SCHOOL, KUSAUTHAR, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 7. THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 8. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 9. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 10. THE ADDITIONAL FINANCE COMMISSIONER (RESOURCES), DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ……………………………………………….RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Pushkar Narain Sahi & Patanjali Rishi, Advocates. For the State : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, GP-III and Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-III. ---------- 3. 17.3.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2 State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the part of the office order contained in Memo No.1726 dated 13.6.2006, issued under the signature of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.3) as contained in Annexure-‘14’ to the writ application and further for issuing a direction to the Respondents authorities for grant of benefit of continuity of service with a consequential benefit from 22.11.1973 to 2.9.1975 and, accordingly, re-fixing the pay scale and promotional pay scale after treating him to be in the State Government Service after extending benefit of continuity in the service from the aforesaid date. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No.6896 of 2004 with a prayer seeking direction to the authorities concerned to count his service from 22.11.1973 as the State Government Service and the consequential benefits flowing therefrom. However, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the aforesaid writ application with a liberty that if he files representation, the Respondent No.3, the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, would decide the same in 3 accordance with law expeditiously. Upon such representation being filed, the order, as contained in Annexure-‘14’ to the writ application, has been passed, which is under challenge in the present writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed vide Annexure-‘1’ to the writ application as a teacher in High School on temporary basis and upon payment of fixed stipend under Special Scheme. However, the services of the petitioner alongwith others were regularized w.e.f. 22.11.1974 in the regular pay scale. In the meantime, the petitioner had applied for appointment as teacher in response to an advertisement in a different High School and pursuant to that, after being successful in the selection process and the appointment letter dated 9.8.1975 having been issued, he joined as a teacher of Biology in the Bapu Smarak High School, Kusauthar at Darbhanga. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner worked on the earlier post since 22.11.1973 till 2.9.1975. However, by the impugned order, the petitioner has been granted continuity of service only from the date of his regularization till his relieving from 22.11.1974 to 2.9.1975. The petitioner claims such benefit from the date of his initial 4 appointment, i.e., 22.11.1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the point in controversy already stands considered and decided by this Court while disposing of writ applications filed at the behest of the other similarly situated persons. One of such order has been brought on record as Annexure- ‘2’ to the writ application, which is an order dated 29.7.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No.6995 of 1998 and another analogous case. From perusal of Annexure-‘2’, it appears that the aforesaid order also relates to the persons appointed on stipend basis under the Special Employment Scheme of Educated Unemployed Persons. A learned Single Judge of this Court, upon placing reliance on the unreported decision dated 1st of May, 1995 in the case of Jogendra Rout in C.W.J.C. No.3633 of 1994, has held that, after regularization of the service of the petitioner on the said post, the services of the petitioner should be treated to be regularized on completion of one year of service on stipend basis. There is no reason to deny the benefit of continuous officiation for the scope of seniority, fixation of pay, etc. and had directed to treat the petitioner of the said case as an appointee from 9th of 5 November, 1973 itself, which was the initial date of his appointment as stipend teacher and also directed to provide him with the benefits of the revised scale. Learned counsel for the State could not point out any other decision of this Court with respect to the concerned teachers appointed under the aforesaid Scheme taking a different view. Thus, this Court also does not find any reason to deviate from the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge and take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the part of the order dated 13.6.2006 as contained in Annexure-‘14’, whereby the petitioner has been granted continuation of service for the purpose of pensionary benefit from 22.11.1974 is hereby set aside and it is held that the petitioner is entitled for such benefit from the date of his initial appointment as a stipend teacher, i.e., 22.11.1973 as his case is also on similar footing to the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.6995 of 1998 and other analogous cases. However, regarding the other reliefs sought for in the present writ application, it appears that there is no consideration by the concerned authority pursuant to the order dated 5.1.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No.6896 of 2004 as 6 contained in Annexure-‘11’ to the writ application. In the above view of the matter, in case the petitioner files representation pointing out his claims other than continuity of service for pensionary benefit alongwith the copy of this order allowed to him as above, the Respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass an order in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the earlier orders passed in that regard by this Court including such as contained in Annexure-‘2’ to the writ application. The decisions as taken shall be communicated to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)