IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 12411 of 2004 1 Krishna Mohan Jha, son of late Chandra Nath Jha, resident of village – Bishunpur, P S – Arer, District – Madhubani, at present working as Assistant Techer in Sri Dineshwar Nath Sanskrit Ucchya Vidyalaya, Arer, P S – Arer, District – Madhubani 2 Magnu Jha, son of late Hari Sundar Jha, resident of village – Mahinathpur, P S – Basopatti, District – Madhubani 3 Subhkant Jha, son of late Janak Lal Jha, resident of village – Pachadhi, P S – Pandaul, District – Madhubani 4 Mahadev Jha, son of late Bhup Narayan Jha, resident of village – Kakaraul, P S – Rahika, District – Madhubani 5 Ramasharya Singh, son of Sri Jagnath Singh, resident of village – Ikil, P O – Sonbarsha, P S – Navanagar, District – Buxar (Bihar), working as Assistant Teacher in Guneshwar Rameshwarup Ramsagar Sanskrit Uchch Vidyalaya, Mahinathpur, Via – Basopatti, P S – Basopatti, District – Madhubani 6 Bhavendra Jha, son of late Tripit Jha, resident of village – Pachadhi, P S – Pandaul, District – Madhubani, at present working as Assistant Teacher, Laxamiwati Sanskrit High School, Maharail, P S – Andharathadhi, District – Madhubani 7 Suresh Jha, son of Shri Vedanand Jha, resident of village – Simari Navtol, P S and P O – Raj Nagar, District – Madhubani 8 Ram Bhushan Mishra, son of late Jay Narain Mishra, resident of village and P O – Sagarpur, P S – Pandaul, District – Madhubani 9 Ram Kumar Singh, son of late Rajendra Prasad Singh, At and P O – Raghopu Balat, P S – Raj Nagar, District – Madhubani 10 Rohit Yadav Raman, son of late Ram Avtar Yadav, At and P O – Raghopur Balat, P S – Rajnagar, District – Madhubani - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna 3 The Additional Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna 4 The Under Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 5 The Special Director (Sanskrit), Secondary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 6 The Chairman, Bihar Sanakrit Shiksha Board, Patna 7 The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna - Respondents *** For the petitioners : Mr Vishwanath Pd Sinha, Sr Advocate with M/s Yugal Kishore, Prabhash Ranjan Thakur, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr M K Pathak, AC to GA 4 2 For the B o a r d : Mr Awadhesh Pd Sinha, Advocate *** 11 05.04.2011 The petitioners, 10 in number, are Teachers in different subjects in various Sanskrit Schools in the State. They are aggrieved by the letter of the State Government as contained in Memo No 966 dated 14.12.1995 (Annexure-17) which seeks to clarify the position that all the posts of Teachers beyond the staffing pattern (Manak Mandal), upon the Ordinance taking over the management and control of Sanskrit Schools being issued, stood abolished. The Ordinance being Bihar Ordinance No 32 of 1989 being the Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit School (Management and Control) Ordinance, 1989 was assented to by the Governor on 16th December, 1989 and published in the Bihar Gazette on 18th December, 1989. Counter affidavits and rejoinders have been filed. With consent of parties, this writ application is heard at this stage itself for final disposal. In my view, it is not necessary to delve into rival contentions inasmuch as the issue has squarely been decided by this Court on several occasions including one of the last judgment being in the case of Deo Shankar Jha and others –Versus- the State of Bihar and others since reported in 2010 (4) PLJR 346. In the said decision, the relevant part is contained in paragraphs-13 and 14 of the reports which is quoted hereunder : 13. “The other issue is with regard to the letter of the State Government, as contained in Memo No 966 dated 3 14.12.1995 (Annexure-1) to CWJC No 216 of 1998. This letter tries to create a piquant situation. It states that the Ordinance having recognized in its Manak Mandal, lesser sanctioned post, then what was sanctioned earlier for this 429 Schools, the difference between the two would be deemed to be cancelled post. I may first observe that as I have held above, the Ordinance does not say so as I have held above Ordinance creates two classes of Teachers, one who would continue to get grant-in-aid notwithstanding beyond the sanction (Manak Mandal) of the Ordinance and the other who fell within the Manak Mandal (staffing pattern) of the Ordinance who would get Government rates. There was no question of cancellation of the sanctions. Learned counsel for the State submitted that at least this letter can be taken to be effective prospectively cancelling the post after 14th December, 1995. He states that upto this date, all Teachers whether Science or not, have been paid. Effectively, Science Teachers are to be excluded by operation of this letter. In my view, this letter assumes that the effect of Ordinance was cancellation of sanctioned post beyond the Manak Mandal which in fact is not the intention of the Ordinance. However, I may not be required to deal on this aspect any more as this issue has recently been set at rest by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board –Versus- the State of Bihar & Others (LPA No 656 of 2010) being 4 judgment dated 08.04.2010. In that case, identical issue was involved. A learned Single Judge of this Court had granted similar prayer of that writ petitioner for payment of his salary as a Science Teacher after 1995. State and the Board resisted on basis of this very letter being Memo No 966 dated 14.12.1995. Learned Single Judge held the said letter to be ineffectual and in words of the Division Bench a dead letter as noted in paragraph-8 thereof. If it is a dead letter then nothing more is required to be done but to perform the last rites thereof and forget about it as if that letter never existed. If the letter did not exist then the position would be in view of the judgment of the Division Bench and what I have held earlier that all Science Teachers and all Teachers, whose services were approved being on sanctioned post prior to the Ordinance or whose posts was sanctioned and services approved during the Ordinance period, would be deemed to be Teachers entitled to Government grant-in-aid at the rate that were being paid prior to the Ordinance subject to such increments which may be due. 14. On similar reasoning, a similar letter of the State Government being issued under Memo No 1056 dated 21.12.1995 which deals with purported cancellation of Primary Teacher posts which were sanctioned by letter No 957 dated 18.11.1989 cannot also stand because the import of this letter is identical to that of 5 the letter dated 14th December, 1995 which the Division Bench has already held to be a dead letter. This letter of 1995 is also a dead letter.” Thus, the impugned letter under Memo No 966 dated 14.12.1995 (Annexure-17) being a dead letter is quashed as such. The position would be that all those Teachers, who were working on duly sanctioned post prior to Ordinance aforesaid, would continue and cannot be deemed to be dismissed and would be required to be paid their remunerations from the grant-in-aid which is required to be given by the State to the Schools. The writ application is, thus, allowed in the same terms as the aforesaid judgment in the case of Deo Shankar Jha (supra) and it is expected that the dues of the petitioners would be paid at the earliest but not later than three months from today. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)