- 1 - Letters Patent Appeal No.715 OF 2000 -------- Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 2-3-2000 passed by a single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.No 8473 of 1999 -------- THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS--------------------Appellants Versus RAJ MANGAL ROY------------------------- Respondent -------- Advocate for the Appellants;- Mr.Anil Kumar, G.P.XI -------- Advocate for the Respondents;- Mr. Shree Kant Pandey ---------- Advocate for Sanskrit Siksha Board:- Mr. S.S.Mishr ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH & THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.N.SINGH ------------- Shiva Kirti Singh J.N.Singh,JJ Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the sole respondent ( writ petitioner ). 2. The stand of the appellants is that the judgment and order of the writ court under appeal suffers from error of law inasmuch as the writ court failed to consider that the Ordinance No.32 dated 18-12-1989 by which the State had decided to take over 491 Sanskrit Schools including the school in question lapsed on 1-5-1992 and therefore the liability of the State of Bihar to pay for the teachers of such schools also ceased. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the staffing pattern ( Manak Mandal ) introduced through Ordinance No.32 dated 18-12-1989 stipulated only 7 teaching staff which did not include a science teacher and therefore no sanction could have been granted to the post of science teacher held by the writ petitioner. 3. We have gone through the judgment and order under appeal carefully - 2 - and from the statement of facts as well as discussions made therein, particularly paragraphs 5 and 6 we find that the writ court has correctly appreciated the law applicable at the relevant period. The post of science teacher held by the petitioner was sanctioned by the Education Commissioner, Bihar on 11-12- 1982 under the staffing pattern laid down vide resolution dated 29-6-1981. Thereafter the service of the petitioner was approved against such validly created post on 13-4-1983. The writ court noticed that it is not the case of the respondents that the school in question did not have permission to teach science subject. It also noticed that there was no specific order to cancel the post created vide letter dated 11-12-1982. Thus, although cognizant of the Ordinance dated 18-12-1989 and its lapse on 1-5-1992, the writ court has found the claim of the petitioner for his salary dues since December, 1995 to be lawful and has allowed such claim. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a Division Bench order dated 13-2-1996 passed in a contempt matter bearing M.JC No. 1206 of 1994. The said order has been annexed as annexure-2 with memo of this Letters patent appeal.. Paragraph-6 of the said order also holds that teachers like the writ petitioner will be entitled to the payment of salary and allowances at the old scale to which they were entitled as if ordinances were never passed. The judgment under appeal does not decide the scale in which the writ petitioner should be paid. Hence there is no conflict between the aforesaid order of the Division Bench and the judgment under appeal. 5. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that cases of many teachers of taken over Sanskrit schools affected by the lapse of Ordinance of take over on 1-5-1992 are pending in the Apex Court and some - 3 - interim orders have been passed in those matters directing payment of salary to the affected employees. We have not been taken through those orders but it appears that the writ court has noticed that the State of Bihar has preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 533-3595/94 against relief granted to the teachers of Sanskrit schools by the High Court and vide interim order dated 26-4-1996 the Supreme Court clarified an earlier interim order dated 9-1-1995 to order that the employees shall be paid salary at the rate applicable on 17th December,1989 i.e. just before the promulgation of Ordinance No.32 dated 18-12-1989 and will continue to get their salary till further orders of the Supreme Court. 6. On considering the submissions of the parties, we find that the judgment and order under appeal suffers from no legal or factual error so as to warrant any interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed but without costs. Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( J.N.Singh,J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated the 22nd May, 2008 NAFR Naresh