IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10703 of 1997 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD, son of Late Biga Mahto, resident of village Koir- partty, Police Station Thakarha, District- West Champaran at present working as Assistant Teacher, Middle School Koir- Patty, Police Station Thakaraha, District- West Champaran. 2. Hari Ram Prasad, son of Late Shiv Raj Prasad, resident of village Bhual Patty, Police Station Thakraha, District- West Champaran at present working as Assistant Teacher, Primary School Banshi Tola, Police Station Dhanaha District- West Champaran. 3. Dukh Ram Singh, son of Ram Charitar Singh, resident of village.- Hathuahwa, Police Station Thakarha, District West Champaran at present working as Assistant Teacher, in Middle School, Kotahawa, Police Station Dhanha, District West Champaran. 4. Nagina Mishra, son of Lakshi Mohan Mishra, resident of village Ghaghawa, Police Station Dhamaha, District West champaran at present working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Bhual- Patty, Police Station Thakaraha, District West Champaran. 5. Shaukat Ali, son of late Ali Anwar Khan, resident of village Khan Tola, Police Station Thakaraha, District- West Champaran at present working as Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Sujanahi, Police Station- Dhanha, District Ict West Champaran. 6. Amir Hassan, son of late Wazid Hassan Khan, resident of village Khan Tola, Police Station Thakaraha, District West Champaran, at present working as Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Bhuindharwa, Police Station Bhitaha District- West Champaran. 7. Md. Jalil Hussain, son of Md. Alim Hussain, resident of village village Laukaria, Police Station Bariya, District- West Champaran at present working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Nautan, Police Station Nautan, District- West Champaran. 8. Rajendra Thakur, son of Sri Ganga Thakur, resident of village Dukhi Chhapar, Police Station Sikata, District- West Champaran at present working as Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Bathana, police Station Bairia, District- West Champaran. 9. Lallan Sharma, son of Thakur Sharma, resident of village Baswaria, Ward No; 24, police station Bettiah, District West Champaran, at present working as Assistant Teacher, Primary School Bishambhara , Police Station Majhaulia, District West Champaran… Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Regional Dy. Director of Education, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffapur. 2 5. The District Magistrate cum collector, District Establishment Committee (Education), West Champaran, Bettiah. 6. The District Superintendent of Education West Champaran (Bettiah). .. Respondents Ist Set. 7. Sri Abid Hussain, son of of Md. Rasul, resident of Mohalla Mirja Tola (Chhawani), Police Station Bettiah, District West Champaran c/o the District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran. 8. Sri Biresh Prasad Rai, son of Sri Ram Nandan Prasad, resident of village Shekh Dhurwa, police Station Bettiah, District West Champaran, c/o the District Superintendent of Education West Champaran (Bettiah). … Respondents 2nd Set… Respondent. ----------- 7. 10.08.2010 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioners at the outset would submit that he has instruction to press this writ petition only on behalf of petitioner no. 8. That being so, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed as with regard to petitioner nos. 1 to 7 and 9. With regard to sole petitioner now left, petitioner no. 8, Rajendra Thakur, the submission of Mr. Thakur with respect to following prayer: “(1) That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for directing the respondents Ist Set to consider the case of the petitioners as well as other eligible Assistant Teachers of Primary Education for promoting them on higher Pay Scale i.e. in the scale of Rs.730-1080 for the vancies occurring between the period 1.4.1981 to 31.12.1985 as the junior to 3 the petitioners have already been promoted without considering the case of the petitioners.” is that if the juniors to the petitioner including respondent no. 7 and 8 were given promotion of I. A. trained scale of pay, the petitioner would also be entitled for such promotion and consequential benefit of salary in the higher scale of pay. In this context, Mr. Thakur explains that true it is, 1993 Rules have been framed whereby and whereunder I. A. and I. Sc. Trained scale of pay have been abolished but then those who have got benefit of such I. A. and I.Sc. trained scale of pay being juniors to the petitioner no. 8 and having been allowed the benefit of higher scale of pay could also steal march over the petitioner by claiming seniority of the post of I.A. trained scale of pay. He would therefore submit that this court should direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner no. 8 for grant of I. A. trained scale of pay from the date on which his juniors were given such promotion. Counsel for the State with the help of counter affidavit would submit that the writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches inasmuch as juniors to the 4 petitioner no. 8 were given such promotion some time 11 years back and therefore this Court should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. He has further submitted that I. A. and I. Sc. Trained scale of pay having been abolished by 1993 Rules, it would not now be possible for the respondents to grant I. A. trained scale of pay to the petitioner. Explaining the plea of discrimination it has been submitted that respondent no. 7 and 8 were appointed by the Municipal Education Officer and their promotion was made under the orders of R.D.D.E, Tirhut Division which was approved by the District Education Establishment Committee on 24.6.86 and therefore the plea of discrimination in the given facts must fail. In the opinion of this Court, when the respondents have themselves taken a plea in their counter affidavit that some time is required to examine the grievance of the petitioner no. 8 and if the claim of the petitioner no. 8 would be found genuine, the same would also be redressed, it was sufficient for this Court to direct the authorities to make such consideration. However, much water has flown down in the river Ganges during the 5 pendency of this writ application and law with regard to promotion in I.A. trained or B. A. trained pay scale has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Nath Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2009(3) PLJR 384 wherein it has been held that the principles of drawing seniority of Matric trained teachers for the purposes of giving promotion in B. A. Trained scale of pay as per 1993 Rules is valid and justified and gives no additional weightage to the teachers in I.A. trained scale of pay since 1.1.1986, the date from which 1993 Rules have been enforced, this Court will follow the resultant direction given by the Full Bench for drawing a fresh gradation list of all Matric and I.A. trained teachers on the basis of position existing as on 1.1.1986 which would also redress the grievance of the petitioner no. 8 by placing him in the seniority list at his appropriate place after considering his case vis-à-vis any one junior to him to have given I. A. and I.Sc. trained scale of pay on or after 1.1.1986. This Court however must make it clear that the principle of seniority as laid down in the 1993 Rules as clarified by Full Bench will be strictly followed by the authority while drawing the seniority list. This court 6 however in absence of other persons would not like to prejudice them by giving any direction as with regard to placing the petitioner no. 8 at a particular place in the seniority list but the recourse for fixation of seniority of the petitioner must be taken in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Nath Prasad Singh (supra) within a period of six months, if not already done by now. As with regard to the claim of the monetary benefit to the petitioner no. 8, this Court must clarify that in the 1993 Rules there is already a provision for giving three advance increments to such Matric Trained teachers who could not be given promotion in the I. A. trained scale of pay and therefore the case of the petitioner should also be examined in terms of 1993 Rules and if it is found that persons junior to the petitioner no. 8 were given I. A. trained scale of pay, the petitioner no. 8 should also be adequately compensated if not already done so by giving three advance increments as per the 1993 Rules. Such exercise also must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if the authorities for any reason would not 7 find the petitioner no. 8 entitled for grant of benefit of three increment, he will be under obligation to record reasons in his order which also must be communicated to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due in the aforesaid period of six months. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)