IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10295 of 2009 MALATI SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.11489 of 2009 SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.10296 of 2009 SACHCHIDANAND SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.10400 of 2009 RAM NARESH PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.10417 of 2009 RAJENDRA PRASAD MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.11328 of 2009 RAM BALAK THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.12078 of 2009 RAM BILASH MAHATO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.12099 of 2009 ARUN KUMAR PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 15.9.2009 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the - 2 - Counsel appearing for the State. Petitioners in all these applications are working on the post of Assistant Teachers in different Government Schools. Their grievance is that in their service book a wrong entry has been made by the respective District Accounts Officer/ District Superintendent of Education, without properly considering the State Government’s resolution No. 3/PAR/01-3/89-6022 F (2), dated 18.12.1989 which relates to fixation of pay scales of teachers in the revised scales appointed in intermediate trained teachers’ pay scale. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the State Government Resolution dated 18,12,1989 provided different pay scales for fixation of salary of the employees of the State Government. Table No. 16 related to pay scale for fixation of salary of the employees of the State Government, appointed in the intermediate trained teachers’ pay scale in between 01.01.1986 to 01.03.1989. The District Account Officer/District Superintendent of Education without properly considering the guidelines under the resolution, had reduced pay scale of the petitioners and fixed their salary as Rs.1290/- instead of Rs.1470/-. The issue relating to fixation of salary in the pay scale, as per the Government’s resolution, had earlier - 3 - been considered by this Court in CWJC No. 8333 of 1999 ( Shiv Kant Jha vs. State of Bihar & others). In third paragraph of the judgment reference of Clause 8 of the resolution has been given and it has been decided that the salary of intermediate trained teachers in accordance with the resolution should be Rs.1470/- and not Rs.1290/-. Considering the fact that petitioners’ case is identical to the case of the petitioners in CWJC No. 8333 of 1999, as such, the entry made in their service book by the respective District Accounts Officer/District Superintendent of Education fixing their salary as Rs.1290/- instead of Rs.1470/- are quashed. The concerned District Account Officer/District Superintendent of Education are directed to make necessary correction in the service book of the petitioners, fixing their salary and other consequential benefits in the scale of Rs.1470/-. This exercise must be completed by the respective District Account Officer/District Superintendent of Education within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. In two writ applications i.e. CWJC No. 11489 of 2009 and CWJC No. 11328 of 2009 the petitioners had approached the District Superintendent of Education to - 4 - give them similar reliefs in the light of the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 8333 of 1999 but that was rejected stating that the order passed in the case of Shiv Kant Jha ( CWJC No. 8333 of 1999) was not in consonance with the rules and the relief was allowed to the petitioner Shiv Kant Jha for the reason that the State failed to prefer Letters Patent Appeal, against the order passed in the writ application within the prescribed time. I find that the stand which has been taken by the District Superintendent of Education, considering the fact that after disposal of Shiv Kant Jha’s case several other cases have been decided in the light of the same judgment. Till date no LPA has been preferred by the State and the order passed in CWJC No. 8333 of 1999 is still a good law. The District Superintendent of Education had no reason to differ with the direction of this Court in the earlier writ applications and the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education in CWJC No. 11489 of 2009 as contained in Annexure-14 and in CWJC No. 11328/2009 as contained in Annexure-13 are also quashed. All these writ applications are allowed with aforementioned directions/observations. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.kumar - 5 -