IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12795 of 1996 1. Narendra Nath Jha, Son of Sri Mahadev Jha, a resident of village Bagahi, P.S. Ramgarhwa, District East Champaran, at present Head Master, Sarda Sadan Sanskrit Uchh Vidyalaya, P.S. Chainpur, District East Champaran. 2. Hem Chandra Jha, S/o Sri Gobind Jha. 3. Awdhesh Kumar, S/o Sri Gobind Jha. 4. Awdhesh Kumar Jha, S/o Late Bhagwat Jha. 5. Paramanand Prasd, S/o Sri Nagendra Prasad. 6. Nidhi Nandan Jha, S/o Sri Mohan Jha. 7. Satrughan Jha, S/o Sri Jagdanand Jha.. Serial No.2 to 7 are the Assistant Teachers at Sarda Sadan Sanskrit Uchh Vidyalaya, Chainpur, District East Champaran. 8. Jeevan Jee Prasad, S/o Sri Rajbanshi Lal. 9. Chaturanan Jha, S/o Sri Mahavir Jha. Serial No.8 is the Clerk and Serial No.9 is the Peon at Sarda Sadan Uchh Vidyalaya Chainpur. ----------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar, Secretary Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Special Director, Secondary Education Bihar, Patna. 4. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna through its Secretary. 5. Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. 6. District Education Officer, East Champaran. 7. Block Development Officer, Sugauli, east Champaran. --------- Respondents ----------- 4 29.06.2010 Heard Mr. Tara Nath Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners. The prayer of the writ petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ at the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter issued vide memo no. 891 dated 30th November, 1995 so far it relates to the petitioner issued under the 2 signature of Respondent no.2 under which a direction has been issued to deprive the 86 (eighty six) Schools from the grants in aid w.e.f. 18.12.1989 and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment of dues and current salary to the petitioners and further for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents not to interfere with the proper working of the petitioners in the School in question and their entitlement of the financial benefits for which they are entitle to get in accordance with law as the working staff of the School.” Mr. Tara Nath Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order dated 30th November, 1995, would submit that when the school of the petitioners had been given recognition by the competent authority some 70 years back, it could not have been deprived of the benefit of payment of salary by way of grant-in-aid by a general decision, inasmuch as, the impugned order does not give any specific reason for denying such payment of salary in respect of the school of the petitioners. He 3 would further submit that making out a category of 86 schools for denying payment of salary would be wholly unreasonable, inasmuch as, the State Government on the one hand has assailed the judgment of this Court dated 9.3.1994 in the case of Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 1994(2)PLJR 359 before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal and the petitioners’ school also is one of the Sanskrit School amongst the lot of 429, which has been made party to the said civil appeal. He would further submit that this general order cannot deprive the petitioners from receiving payment of salary. In the opinion of this Court, there is something amiss in the minds of the authorities of the State Government. When 429 Sanskrit Schools were taken over by ordinance no. 32 of 1989 dated 18.12.1989, the benefit of Section 4 was available to all the Sanskrit Schools including the school of the petitioner. When the ordinance was sought to be not continued after 30.4.1992, the effect of the same had to be also equally born by all the teachers of the 429 Sanskrit Schools 4 and that is how, this Court has decided the matter in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra). The only issue with regard to the effect of repeal of a temporary statute being now pending before the Constitution Bench in the Civil Appeal filed by the State, it would be wholly improper and imprudent on the part of the one of the party to the appeal, namely, the State of Bihar to change the status of these 429 schools for which the Supreme Court by an order dated 9.1.1995 had directed for payment of salary to all the teachers in the old pay-scale. Such order of payment of salary is still continuing and therefore, the classification made on the basis of ‘Anukul’ or ‘Pratikul’ could not have in any way weighed for denying payment of salary. It also transpires that thereafter the payment of salary of 86 schools were resumed and such payment was made to all the 86 schools up till 2004 when the impugned order was passed with regard to the cancellation of recognition of the Sanskrit Schools. This Court had never said that the Government will be at liberty to pass an 5 order for denial of the payment of salary by way of grant and that too with retrospective effect from 18.12.1989. Unfortunately, in this case, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent State of Bihar nor the position has been eased by the counsel for the Board in any manner. It is true that in the matter of grant of aid, there would be no compulsive right of any recognized Sanskrit School but then if by one decision of the year 1981 the Government had decided to pay salary to the then existing recognized Sanskrit Schools with effect from 1.4.1981, it cannot choose to discriminate on artificial ground. The ground which has been mentioned in the impugned order dated 30.11.1995 in fact does not set out anything save and except some observation in paragraph no.106 in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra). As noted above, the judgment of Subhash Chandra (supra) is still subjudice at the instance of the State Government in the civil appeal before the Apex Court. In that view of the matter, this 6 Court does not find any justification in the impugned order dated 30.11.1995, which must be and is hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that notwithstanding allowing this writ application, if the Board or the Government has passed any subsequent order with regard to cancelling the recognition of the school of the petitioner, the same will continue to govern the right of the parties in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this writ application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)