IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.2755 OF 2007 SHUKAN CHAUDHARY, S/O LATE JAGESHWAR CHAUDHARY,R/O VILLAGE JAHANABAD, P.O. + P.S. LALGANJ, DISTRICT VAISHALI. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, VAISHALI, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, D.M. VAISHALI. 4.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI. 5.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 05.08.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/direction (s) for quashing the part of order as contained in memo no. 1727 dated 03.09.1998 issued by the D.S.E., Vaishali whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been given first time bound promotion with effect from a retrospective date i.e. 27.01.1996 in matric trained pay scale while he should have been given the said promotion with effect from a prospective dated i.e. 01.03.1985 in I.A. trained pay scale. And further for direction to the respondents to shift back the date of first time bound promotion of the petitioner from 27.01.1996 to 01.03.1985 and also for grant of the said promotion in I.A trained pay scale for which the petitioner is legally entitled and to give its monetary benefits with bank interest rate i.e. the date on which he has completed 9 years of service. 2 The respondents further be directed to grant second time bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date on which he has completed 23 years of service i.e. with effect from 01.03.1999 and to give its monetary benefits with bank interest rate.” As would be apparent from the aforementioned relief, the petitioner claims that the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali dated 03.09.1998 with regard to grant of senior scale on the post of teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- is bad because it is in violation of the Government resolution dated 18.12.1989. Normally such belated writ application questioning the order dated 03.09.1998 and that too involving financial implication was good enough to be rejected on the ground of delay, inasmuch as, the petitioner could not have maintained a money suit after the expiry of a period of three years. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on an order of this Court dated 25.02.2011 passed in C.W.J.C No. 14888 of 2005 for explaining the delay is also wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, the claim of the petitioner 3 though subsisting was not decided by the Authority and as such a direction was issued for considering the same. Here in the present case the claim of the petitioner of time bound promotion was already decided in the year 1998 and thereafter he had slept over his rights for nine years before filing this writ application. In that view of the matter, this application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Considering, however, the fact that the petitioner’s case also cannot be allowed on the ground of merit, inasmuch as, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed as an untrained teacher in the year 1976. The petitioner thereafter got the training qualification whereafter he was given the higher pay scale of matric trained teacher on 27.01.1984. The moment the petitioner would get the higher scale of pay of matric trained teacher, he would be disqualified for claiming the time bound promotion in terms of the resolution of the Finance Department dated 30.12.1981 which in no 4 uncertain terms lays down that such time bound promotion on completion of 10 years or 25 years of service would be available to such persons who have not been given any benefit of higher pay scale in the corresponding period of 10 years and/or 25 years. That being so, the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to scheduled caste category and therefore, became eligible for grant of first time bound promotion w.e.f., 01.03.1985 is wholly misplaced and must be rejected, inasmuch as, he was already given the matric trained pay scale w.e.f., 27.01.1984. To that extent the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on an order of this Court in the case of Most. Lakshmi Dwivedi vs The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2007(2) PLJR 232 is again wholly misplaced as that was the case of a Touring Veterinary Officer who was not similarly situated, as that in the case of teachers including the petitioner for whom the State Government had specifically issued the resolution no. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 laying amongst other things as 5 follows:- 13.The State Government have decided that Revised pay scale indicated in Schedule II be extended to teachers in these schools and the provisions under the Central Government regarding training, eligibility for appointment and promotion and other service conditions be made applicable to them as far as possible. Thus the efficiency bars in their pay scales shall also continue. The following principles have been laid down for fixation of pay in the Revised scale. These provisions shall be applicable to all teachers except those having matric(untrained) qualification:- (i) All those teachers who were in the basic grade on 1st January 1986 shall have their Revised pay fixed in the basic grade indicated in Schedule II. (ii) All those teachers who were in receipt of promotion or time bound promotion into the Junior selection grade and had completed 12 years of service in the basic grade prior to 1st January 1986 shall have their pay fixed in the Revised senior scale were indicated in Schedule-II. Those teachers who were in receipt of promotion or time bound promotion into the junior selection grade prior to 1st January 1986,but had not completed 12 years of service in the basic grade on that date shall also have their pay fixed in the Revised scale in the basic grade only on 1st January 1986. Benefit of promotion and fixation of pay in senior scale shall be given to them with effect from the date they complete 12 years of service. (iii) Those teachers who have received promotion into Junior Selection Grade or first time bound promotion after 1st January 1986 but before 1st March 1989 shall be given the benefit of promotion for the purpose of fixation of their pay in 6 the Revised scale only with effect from the date they have received promotion, or date on which they complete 12 years of service whichever is later. (iv) Those teachers who have been promoted in Senior Selection Grade and have also completed 12 years of service or have received second time bound promotion on completion of 25 years of service prior to 1st January 1986 shall also have their pay fixed in the Revised senior scale. Promotion into the Senior Selection Grade or second time bound promotion after 1st January 1986 shall be ignored for the purpose of fixation of pay in the Revised scale. (v) Benefit of selection scale in the Revised scale of pay shall be extended to teachers in accordance with the availability of posts and the procedure and conditions prescribed by the Central Government for their teachers which would be deemed to have been in force with effect from 1st January 1986. The number of posts in the selection scale where admissible in Schedule-II will be restricted to 20 per cent of the number of posts in senior scale of the respective cadre. Regarding conversion of posts into selection scale on 1st January 1986 the Department of Human Resources Development shall issue separate orders in consultation with Finance Department and promotion shall be given according to the conditions prescribed by the Central Government for their teachers. The number of posts in the selection scales shall be subject to review on 1st April of each year, the first such review being due on 1st April, 1987. (vi) The existing faculty to time bound promotion and selection grade discussed in paragraphs 10-11 of F.D Resolution no. 10770, dated 30th December, 1981 shall cease to be applicable from 1st March, 1980 onwards in the existing pay-scales 7 and shall not be applicable to all for the purpose of pay fixation in Revised scales with effect from 1st January, 1986. The suppertime selection grade now being introduced for other Government employees shall not be applicable to these teachers. Such promotions, however, if due before 1st March, 1986 shall be given and payment in the existing scale made only upto 28th February, 1989 after which the promotion would be deemed to have been terminated. (vii) The existing procedure of fixation of pay on promotion will cease to be applicable to teachers in the Revised pay-scales with effect from 1st January 1986. In their case the pay fixation on promotion shall be governed by Rule 22(c) of Fundamental Rules and instructions issued by the Central Government for their teachers from time to time. The fixation of pay on promotion referred to in sub-paragraphs (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) shall also be governed by those provisions. From the reading of the aforementioned Government Resolution it would be thus clear that since, the Government had adopted the pay scale of the Central Government for the teachers as well it had consciously decided to do away the claim of time bound promotion for the post of teachers as would be evident from the two paragraphs of the aforementioned resolution dated 18.12.1989 reading as follows:- “Finance Department Resolution no. 3/PAR-01-3/89. 6022.F (2) dated 8 18th December, 1989. Subject.-Revision of the scales of pay of teacher, of schools taken over (Rajkiyarkrit) and under the Aministrative control of Department of Human Resources Department. 1.The State Government after careful consideration have decided to extend to teachers in Primary, Middle, Secondary and plus two schools taken over by the Government and under the Administrative control of the Department of Human Resource Development, the revised scale of pay as indicated in Schedule-I. The existing scale means the present scale applicable to the post held by the teacher (or, as the case may be, personal scale applicable to him) as on the Ist day of January, 1986 whether in a substantive of officiating capacity. In case of such teachers whose scale of pay has been upgraded on the recommendation of the Anomaly Removal Committee with effect from 1st March 1986, the existing scale would be deemed to be the scale allowed by the Govt. from 1st March, 1986 as if it were in force on the 1st January, 1986. However, no re-fixation of pay in the existing scale for the period 1st January, 1986 to 28th February, 1986 would be admissible. The provision is meant simply to allow the benefit of upgraded scale of pay to the teacher for the purpose of fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay on 1st January, 1986. 2.The Revised scales of pay will apply to all teachers who were in service on the 1st January, 1986 and to all new appointments or promotions made effective on or after the said date subject to the provisions made in subsequent paragraphs of this Resolution, provided that in case of teachers who were under suspension or on leave or were not on duty on 1st January, 1986, the Revised scale of pay will be made applicable to them from the date of their return to the duty.” 9 Once this aspect becomes clear, it will not be difficult for the Court to reject the submission of the petitioner as with regard to grant of second time bound promotion w.e.f., 01.03.1999, inasmuch as, before when date the Government had consciously decided to take away the benefit of time bound promotion for the post of teachers w.e.f.,01.03.1989. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner for grant of second time bound promotion policy is wholly misplaced and the reliance placed by the petitioner on the order of this Court in the case of Paras Nath Mishra vs The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 265 is again wholly misplaced. That was infact a case of Junior Accounts Clerk who was not covered by a special provision made for the teachers vide Resolution no. 6022 dated 18.12.1989. That being so, this application is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)