IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.897 of 2009 BACHCHOO PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BAIJU PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF GRAM BALIA GRAM, POLICE STATION- RAHUI, DISTRICT – NALANDA, AT PRESENT IN- CHARGE HEADMASTER, PATEL HIGH SCHOOL, BIHARSHARIFF, POLICE STATION – BIHAR, DISTRICT – NALANDA ………………… PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SECONDARY EDUCATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NALANDA, DISTRICT – NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIFF. …………… RESPONDENTS ----------- 04. 05.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher under the Special Employment Scheme in Science Faculty on a stipend of Rs. 200/- per month in High School Sarbahdi, Nalanda. Subsequently, petitioner was transferred to Patel High School, Biharsharif, Nalanda and presently being working there. He had been appointed, observing all procedure and formalities for a regular appointment. After completion of one year of service, petitioner’s appointment was affirmed in the B.Sc. trained scale by an order issued by the District Education Officer, Patna-Nalanda, vide Memo No. 743, dated 03.03.1975. Petitioner is aggrieved on account of 2 discrimination done by the Respondent Authorities in the matters of counting his length of service as well as allowing benefits of salary of pay fixation from the date of his initial appointment. Similarly situated Teachers, who had been appointed under the same Scheme in the similar manner, their seniority had been reckoned with effect from the date of their initial appointment and they have also been allowed the benefit of seniority as well as all consequential benefits, including the revised salary. But, so far petitioner is concerned, his case has not been considered by the Respondent only for one reason that he has not filed any Writ Application. Petitioner represented before the Director, Secondary Education for giving similar benefits to him and reckoned his seniority with effect from the date of his initial appointment as well as to pay all consequential benefits, but that has not been considered. Prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the Respondents to allow him similar benefits, as it has been allowed in the case of Yogendra Raut, Yogeshwar Prasad Sinha and others, who had filed C.W.J.C. No. 3633 of 1994 and C.W.J.C. No. 7152 of 1997. In the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the Director, Secondary Education, Respondent No. 2, there 3 is no denial so far the appointment of the petitioner, initially on stipend and subsequently on regular basis. But, it has been stated in para 12 that the matter related to the Teachers, appointed in the Special Employment Scheme, was considered and they were allowed the benefit of regular scale from the date of their initial employment notionally. They have also allowed the benefit of seniority and pay fixation notionally with effect from the date of their initial appointment. They have been allowed financial benefit from payment of difference of salary for the period in between their initial appointment and the date on which their services were affirmed. I find that this statement has been made in the Counter Affidavit, completely ignoring the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education in the case of petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 775 of 2001 and C.W.J.C. No. 543 of 2001. The Order has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure – 4, from which it is apparent that from the date of their initial appointment, they have been allowed all consequential benefits, not merely notional benefits. This Writ Application is being disposed of directing the Respondents to pass similar order, in case 4 of the petitioner, allowing similar benefits, as it has been passed in case of Kamta Prasad & Ors. Vrs State of Bihar C.W.J.C. No. 775 of 2001 and Surendra Prasad & Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar C.W.J.C. No. 543 of 2001, vide order contained in Memo No. 836 (legal), dated 24.01.2006. The similar order must be passed in favour of the petitioner, allowing all consequential benefits with the date of his initial appointment within eight weeks from the date of production / communication of this Order. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)