IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15214 of 2006 Usha Rani Mishra, wife of Sri Ram Milan Mishra, resident of Narkatiaganj, P.S. Sikarpur, District West Champaran, at present posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Take-over Kanya Middle School, Narkatiaganj (Hindi), West Champaran … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner cum Secretary Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Patna 2. Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 4. The District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran, Bettiah 5. The Drawing and Disbursing Officer cum In- charge Headmaster, Kanya Middle School, Narkatiaganj (Hindi), West Champaran … Respondents ----------- 3. 11.7.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present and would support the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures 2 and 3, by taking a plea that when it was admitted fact that the petitioner was not appointed as a Craft Teacher in the year 1970 she could not have received the benefit of payment of salary in the Matric trained scale of pay on the strength of the Govt. decision contained in letter no. 4990 dated 22.11.1962. He would, therefore, submit that even if the petitioner was granted such Matric trained scale of pay by the District Superintendent 2 of Education by an order dated 27.3.1980, the consequential decision taken to revert the petitioner back in the Matric untrained scale of pay on account of lack of training qualification should not be interfered by this Court, especially when the matter had been examined by the authority from all possible angles in view of repeated orders of remand passed by this Court in the earlier writ applications filed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1970 in the untrained Matric pay scale which was then permissible as per existing Rules and Circulars of the State Government. At that point of time whether the petitioner was given designation of a general teacher or a Craft Teacher without having any training in craft is not established but then this much is clear that in the year 1980 the competent authority, namely, the District Superintendent of Education on verification of the fact of the petitioner’s completing craft training and the finding the Govt. circular dated 22.11.1962 to be applicable 3 had granted Matric trained pay scale to the petitioner by specific order dated 26.3.1980, as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application, with effect from 1.4.1973. Such order in favour of the petitioner was allowed to continue for more than 20 years and was sought to be rescinded only on some complaint filed before the Lokayukta. This Court in the earlier orders passed in C.W.J.C.No. 10096/1994 disposed of on 31.7.1996, again in C.W.J.C.No. 2128/2002 disposed of on 22.4.2003 and in C.W.J.C.No. 461/2004 disposed of on 17.8.2005 had repeatedly remitted the matter back to the authority to find out as to whether the petitioner was entitled for such grant of Matric trained scale of pay. The findings given by the authorities are somehow conflicting. Earlier it was said that the petitioner was granted Matric trained scale of pay not because of having training in craft but because of having higher qualification of Sahityalankar. When such reason could not be approved in view of the specific order passed in favour of the petitioner the authority now has by the 4 impugned order gone to hold that the petitioner’s appointment was made as general teacher and as such, she was not entitled to get the benefit of Craft Teacher in view of the Government circular dated 22.11.1962. A welfare State is not supposed to create this sort of uncertainty in service condition of its employees. It is not in doubt that even such teachers who had not completed the formal teachers training course and had only undergone training course of craft teacher also were found to be entitled for payment of salary as a matric trained teacher. That is how the circular dated 22.11.1962 had made such a provision. If this circular was acted upon in the year 1980 well before framing of the new recruitment appointment and Rules Primary Teachers in the year 1993, any action taken under the old circular would not become bad because in the subsequent Rules the qualification for the post of teacher including by way of formal teachers training course was made compulsory. In any event the petitioner, who was appointed in the year 1970, by now must have retired from 5 the service and therefore, this Court would find no reason to deprive her of the benefit that she had continued to draw for more than two decades as a Matric trained teacher. The petitioner’s specific assertion in this regard of there being a similar case of one Shanti Devi who too was given such Matric trained scale of pay only on the strength of her acquiring training in craft has not been controverted and the impugned order only goes to show that the direction was given to also cancel the order of her (Shanti Devi) such grant of Matric trained scale of pay. Considering all these aspects this Court would find it difficult to approve the reasonings given in the impugned order dated 24.2.2006, as contained in Annexure 2, or its affirmance in the bald and non-speaking order passed by the Secretary of the Department dated 29.5.2006, as contained in Annexure 3. In the result, this writ application is allowed and Annexures 2 and 3 are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to ensure that the petitioner’s post retirement benefit must be paid on the 6 basis of her being through out a Matric trained teacher in view of the order in her favour passed in 1980. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/