IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4072 of 2007 SAKALDEO PRASAD SINGH S/o- Late Jaganath Sharma, resident of village-Anauli, P.O. and P.S.-Bhagwanganj, District- Panta. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Dy. Director (Secondary Education)Budh Mag, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Patna. 5. The Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Patna. 6. The Headmaster, Gokhula, Sri Ram Pravesh High School, Anauli, Patna. 7. The Treasury Officer, Patna. 8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ---------- For the petitioner :-Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Adv. For he State :-Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, A.C.to S.C.9 For the Accountant General:- Mr. Binod Kumar Labh ******** 5 26.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as a Graduate untrained teacher on 2.1.1971 in the Gokhula Sri Pravesh High School, Anauli, Patna which was then under the private management committee. The school was inspected on 9.6.1972 and whereafter permission was granted for establishment by the competent authorities of the State Government on 9.5.1974. The said permission was followed by a grant of permanent recognition on 12.6.1975. Consequent thereupon a list of teachers was issued vide memo No. 812 dated 12.6.1975 (Annexure-A) which contained 2 names of eight teachers/employees. The name of the petitioner did not appear in the said list. A guideline was issued under the letter No. 756 dated 21.6.1975 by the Special Secretary, Government of Bihar regularizing the services of such of the untrained teachers appointed on/or prior to 2.8.1973, for the purpose of regular appointment subject to the condition that the teacher should be working against a sanctioned post. In the light of the said guidelines, the petitioner represented on 5.7.1975. The cases of all such teachers who were appointed in the school in question prior to 28.9.1973 which obviously included the petitioner having been appointed on 2.1.1971, was forwarded to the Secretary, Secondary Education Board, Budha Marg, Patna for favourable consideration vide letter No. 11.8.1975 of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna (Annexure-7). The petitioner all along continued to serve in the school and was also drawing his salary. The service book of the petitioner was thereafter opened, meaning thereby his services were regularized. Copy of the relevant extract of the service book has been brought on record by way of 3 Annexure-6. The service book in no uncertain terms shows that the petitioner was appointed on 2.1.1971 and has continued thereafter. The petitioner obtained a trained qualification on 31.3.1977 and whereupon an office order vide memo No. 843 dated 27.3.1987 came to be issued granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 31.3.1977 in place of the earlier order dated 8.4.1977. The petitioner thereafter continued to serve in the school and superannuated from service with effect from 31.10.2005. The petitioner submitted his pension papers and has been provided his entire post retiral benefits but in so far as the qualifying service is concerned, the same has been treated with effect from 31.3.1977 ignoring the services rendered by this petitioner prior to the said date and since after his appointment on 2.1.1971. In the circumstances, the petitioner represented before the authorities for counting his services rendered since after the permission for establishment was granted to the school on 9.5.1974 until 31.3.1977 as a qualifying service and which was considered by the District Education Officer, Patna and by 4 order dated 14.5.2007 the claim was disposed of on the grounds that since the services of the petitioner was regularized only with effect from 31.3.1977 hence the services rendered by him for the earlier period has no relevance. It is also stated that the question of partial or complete regularization in the case of the petitioner would not have any effect on his claim. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition came to be filed seeking a direction to the authorities concerned for counting the service rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 9.5.1974 being the date on which the permission for establishment was granted to the school until 31.3.1977. Indisputably the petitioner had all along continued in the service and had discharged his duty. In fact it is in this background that his services had been regularized with effect from 31.3.1977. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since after the permission of establishment was granted to the school, the very period rendered by this petitioner in the school for discharge of duties which formed the basis of his regularization with effect from 31.3.1977 could 5 not be ignored for the purpose of qualifying service. He submits that under the circular No. 6829 dated 1.3.1977 it has been provided that the services rendered by teachers from the date of permission until the date of grant of recognition would be treated as qualifying service, provided that the date of appointment of a teacher would be the date on which the permission of establishment was granted to the school in question. He thus submits that since admittedly, the petitioner is continuing in school w.e.f. 2.1.1971 and the school was granted permission on 9.7.1974 coupled with the fact that the service book shows that the service of the petitioner was continuous since after his initial appointment until his regular absorption on 31.3.1977, the authorities could not ignore the past services. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned action of the authorities and submits that as the name of the petitioner was missing in the list which was under consideration at the time of grant of recognition as is evident from Annexure-A, the services rendered by the petitioner for the period prior to the date on which his services 6 were regularized i.e. on 31.3.1977 could not be counted as a qualifying service. He thus submits that there is no infirmity in the action of the authorities. Learned counsel for the Accountant General supports the action taken by the authorities. I have heard rival contention of the parties and perused the materials on record. The service book of the petitioner placed at Annexure-6 of the proceeding clarifies the entire situation. It shows that the petitioner has been working in the school which was under the private management since his appointment on 2.1.1971 and has continued as such until the same was approved with effect from 31.3.1977. The service book also demonstrates that the school in question was granted permission of an establishment on 9.4.1974 and permanent recognition on 12.6.1975. In view of the relevant circular of the Education Department, providing for treating the date of appointment to be the date on which the permission for establishment was accorded to the school in question, coupled with the fact that the services of the petitioner was 7 all through continuous and the same was approved on 31.3.1977, I find no justifiable reason for the respondents in ignoring the service rendered by this petitioner for the period 9.5.1974 until 31.3.1977. Having considered the issue aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction the concerned authorities of the Education Department to refix and recalculate the pension and pensionary benefit of the petitioner by counting the service rendered by him w.e.f. 9.5.1974 until his date of superannuation on 31.10.2005 and provide him with the consequential reliefs, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )