IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13994 of 2011 Akhouri Savita Sinha D/O Late Akhauri Devendra Prakash Sinha And W/O Dilip Kumar Sinha R/O Mohalla - Anandpuri, House No. 10 Road No. 5, Boring Canal Road, Patna - 800001, Police Station S.K. Puri, Office - G.P.O., Distt. Patna (Bihar) At Present Posted As Block Education Officer, Pokharara, Saraiya, Distt. Muzaffarpur-------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development, Bihar, New Secretariat ( Vikas Bhawan ), Baily Road, Patna - 800001 3. The Secretary, Department of Secretariat, Primary and Adult Education, Bihar, New Secretariat, Bakas Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 4. The Secretary, Department Of Welfare, Bihar, Patna 5. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 6. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 7. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 8. The Director, Mass Education, Govt. Of Bihar, R/O New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 9. The Director, Adult and Non - Formal Education, Bihar, Patna 10. The Collector, Muzaffarpur 11. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur 12. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur ----- ---------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Lal Das, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Aajy SC-11 -------------------- 2 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was initially engaged under Adult Education Scheme. The scheme was floated at the relevant time by the Central Government and carried out through the State agency. Based on the selection petitioner was sent for training and was posted at Sirdala in the district of Nawada in the year 1980. Later on the State Government decided to do away the services of such persons as a matter of policy decision which generated many a litigations before this Court. After a protracted round of legal battle decision in favour of the employees was taken which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2 State Government decided as a mater of policy to retain all such persons under the State depending upon the vacancy which may be available in various departments. List of all such persons were drawn up and petitioner was offered re-employment in terms of the notification contained in annexure-5. Petitioner’s name also figures in the same. A reading of annexure-5 would show that petitioner’s appointment is at a particular pay scale offered to her and this time she was supposed to work as Supervisor under I.C.D.S. Scheme which comes under the Department of Welfare, Government of Bihar. Para-2 of the said notification categorically states that it is fresh appointment and no claim with regard to seniority or otherwise would be entertainable on behalf of the retrenched employees on the basis of fresh appointment. One thing however is clear from the said notification that the past service would be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of pension etc. This order contained in annexure-5/1 is dated 28.6.2006. Petitioner accepted this offer, joined the post and has worked without any murmur or protest as to the terms and conditions of the offer of fresh engagement or appointment. Writ has now been filed seeking a direction for payment of salary to the petitioner for the period she was retrenched till the period she was re-appointed. This claim is based on the observation made by a Bench of the Court in the case of one Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra vs. The State of Bihar and others. A copy of the said decision is annexure-7 to the writ application which was decided on 29.8.2005. The claim of the petitioner is that her case is covered by the said decision and she should not be treated differently with regard to such relief. With due deference to learned counsel representing the 3 petitioner annexue-5/1 was issued after the decision rendered by the High Court which was readily accepted by the petitioner without any protest, without any reservation or any objection having been raised on this count. In addition to that it is not a case of reinstatement after illegal termination having been set aside by the High Court but a case of fresh appointment on a new post with a particular pay scale. The Court fails to understand as to how a direction can be issued upon the respondents to treat the case of the petitioner to be one of illegal termination and analogy of payment of salary after reinstatement is to be applied. Petitioner has been able to get engagement under the State not on the basis of any order of reinstatement but on the basis of a policy formulated for retention of such persons by the State under various departments. This is a new lease of life which has been given to the petitioner and has no co-relation with past service except to the extent indicated in annexure-5/1. The analogy which one can draw from the case of Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra is not available in view of the circumstances stated above. There is no occasion for payment of salary to the petitioner for the period she was terminated /retrenched till she was re-appointed by a fresh offer in terms of annexure-5/1. This writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)