IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8470 of 2003 VINAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, son of Sri Uma Kant Prasad, resident of village Ajamgarh, P.S. Dumra, P.O. Lagma, District Sitamarhi … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner cum Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 5. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi 7. The Headmaster, Middle School, Thumma, Sitamarhi 8. The Treasury Officer, Sitamarhi … Respondents ----------- 5. 3.9.2010 Having heard counsel for the parties as with regard to the following prayer of the petitioner: “This is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, directing and commanding the respondents concerned to revise and fix the basic pay of the sole petitioner in the pay scale of trained teachers with effect from 1.10.1989 with its incidental and consequential benefits which other similarly situated persons, even much juniors to the petitioner, has been allowed by the State Government/ concerned respondents and further also to give promotional benefits from time to time (including time bound 2 promotion) which were allowed to others to which the petitioner is also entitled in accordance with law and further also to make payment of the entire amount to be paid with arrear after the pay scale of the petitioner is revised and fixed in accordance with law by quashing the order of recovery or adjustment of amount from salary in twenty installments already paid to the petitioner as, contained in letter no. 3/MO/-2-6-Muko- 44/4357/UO, 9, Patna dated 13th June, 2003, as contained in Annexure 9, issued under authority of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Finance Department, the respondent no.3.” this Court is of the view that the petitioner has approached almost 14 years of cause of action, inasmuch as the prayer of the petitioner for his payment of salary in Matric trained scale of pay from 1.10.1989 is being sought to be enforced in the writ application filed on 19.8.2003, he would owe an explanation for such an inordinate delay in moving this Court for a relief in its writ jurisdiction. There is however none whatsoever by way of any explanation of the 3 petitioner and therefore, this writ application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. This Court, however, must notice the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the appointment of the petitioner was made on compassionate ground in untrained scale of teacher and there was stipulation that the petitioner will have to become trained at his own expenses within a period of two years, his being not granted leave by the D.S.E. allowing him to complete the training was an act of breach of contract and therefore, when the petitioner ultimately had completed the training in the year 1999 and had been given matric trained scale of pay in the year 2000 he would be entitled to get the salary of matric trained scale of pay from 1989, inasmuch as the period of two years in terms of the order of appointment on compassionate ground was completed with effect from 1.10.1989. In this context the petitioner also relies on the case of some of the juniors who are said to have been given the benefit of matric trained scale of 4 pay from an earlier date as specifically asserted in paragraph 7 of the writ application. In the opinion of this Court first of all the order of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground did not create any binding on the State to send the petitioner on training much less in the period of two years. The relevant portion of the order of appointment of the petitioner reads as follows: Þdk;kZy; ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] lhrke<+h A ¼dk;kZy; & vkns'k½ ftyk vuqdEik lfefr lhrke<+h dh fnukad 20-4-87 dh gqbZ cSBd esa ikfjr izLrko la[;k 18 ds vuq:i Lo0 mekdkUr izlkn f'k{kd izkFkfedh fo|ky; /kkugjk ¼lSniqj½ dh e`R;q lsok dky esa gqbZ Fkh ds iq= Jh fou; dqekj JhokLro xzke $iks0 vktex<+ ¼Mqejk½ ftyk lhrke<+h dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij f'k{kd ds in ij fcYdqy vLFkk;h :Ik ls 535&10&545&15&690 n0 v0 15&765 ds osrueku rFkk ljdkj }kjk vuqekU; HkRrk ds lkFk ;ksxnku fd frfFk ls fuEukafdr 'krksZ ds v/khu izkFkfed fo|ky; /kugjk ¼lSniqj½ esa fjDr bZdkbZ ij inLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA ;ksxnku ds le; bUgsa fdlh izdkj dk ;k=k HkRrk ns; ugha gksxkA rFkk fdlh Hkh le; fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lsok lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA 1%& bUgsa fu;qfDr ds nks o"kksZ ds vUnj vius [kpZ ij izf'k{k.k izkIr dj ysuk gksxk A bl vof/k esa jkT; dks"k ls osru ns; ugha gksxk A 2%& lsok dky esa ewy lsod ds vkfJr ds Hkj.k iks"k.k esa fdlh izdkj ds dfBukbZ gksus ij buds fo:) vuq'kklfud dkjokbZ izkjEHk dj nh tk;xhA rFkk vk/kk osru Hkqxrku e`r ljdkjh lsod ds vkfJr dks ns; gksxk A izf'k{k.k ijh{kksrhZ.k ds ckn gh budh fu;qfDr fofu;fer dh tk;xh A 3%& ;ksxnku ds le; bUgsa vlSfud 'kY; fpfdRld lg eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh lhrke<+h ls LokLF; izek.ki= miLFkkfir djuk gksxk g0@& vLi"V ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd lhrke<+h AÞ 5 The aforesaid order dated 9th September, 1987 appointing the petitioner on the post of teacher passed at a point of time when no appointment of an untrained person could be made on the post of teacher in a Government Primary School as the same was the requirement of statutory rules which was relaxed by the Government only in the cases of compassionate appointment. If, therefore, the petitioner was to complete the condition as contemplated in his order of appointment, the onus was squarely on him to complete such teachers training course. Admittedly the petitioner had joined such course in the year 1999 and had passed its examination only in the year 2005, from which date he has already given the matric trained scale of pay. The petitioner, therefore, in terms of this appointment on compassionate ground cannot get anything more than what was already spelt out in his order of appointment. The plea of discrimination of the petitioner also would be of little avail, inasmuch as whatever has been stated in paragraph 7 in the writ application in this 6 regard, reading as follows: “That it is hereby submitted that after appointment on 14.9.1987, several other teachers even juniors to the petitioner, namely, Mrs. Veena Kumari, Middle School Mehshaul, Ramashish Ram, Primary School, pipra, Riga, Ram Narain Paswan, Middle School, Madhuban, Bajpatti, Bimlesh Kumar, Middle School Bariarpur, Dumra and Amrendra Kumar, Primary School Bachcharpur, Dumra and many others as well were sent to for training in the year 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 by the D.S.E., Sitamhari but the name of the petitioner was left intentionally and malafidely inspite of being made several representations to the D.S.E. Sitamarhi, the respondent no.6, for example one of the copies of the representation dated 10.4.1990 is enclosed herewith.” would only go to show that some other teachers, not necessarily appointed on compassionate ground, were sent for training. This Court is not aware as to the terms and conditions of their appointment and the reasons for their being sent for training, inasmuch as it does not appear that they were appointed with the same 7 stipulation as in the case of the petitioner. Moreover, when the petitioner needed his job most for supporting members of the family of the deceased employee dying in harness, the State had offered him employment and when he has got the qualification it has also ultimately given him the matric trained scale of pay from the date his result was declared. In case he had grievance of not being given matric trained scale of pay or not being given leave or sent for training in 1987 or thereafter, he ought to have not waited up to the year 2003. Moreover he had moved this Court in the interregnum after four years from the date he had been sent and had joined the teachers training programme in 1999. The examination of his training course infact was conducted during the pendency of the writ application some time in the year 2004 and his results were declared in the year 2005 and he was also given the pay scale of Matric Trained Teacher w.e.f. the date of passing his training examination. From the aforesaid discussion it 8 would become clear that the petitioner’s grievance for matric trained scale of pay from 1.10.1989 has absolutely no basis much less any rationale and therefore this inordinately delayed writ application must be and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/