IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1490 of 2003 1. SHIVA CHANDRA PRASAD SINGH s/o Late Mahendra Prasad Singh, resident of village Gopalpur, P. O. Raja Pakar, P. S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur, at present posted and working as the Asstt. Teacher on the vacant post in Govt. Basic School, Bariyarpur, Anchal Muraul, District Muzaffarpur. 2. Ram Pratap Sinha @ Ram Prasad Sinha s/o late Bhajan Prasad Singh, resident of village Sitarampur, P. O. Amrakh, P. S. Maniyari, District Muzaffarpur, at present, posted and working as the Assistant Teacher on the “Vacant Post” in Govt. Basic School, Bariyarpur. Anchal Muraul, District Muzaffarpur. 3. Dineshwar Sharma s/o late Kailash Sharma, resident of village Gang Gaurihar, P. O. Gaurihar kalika nagar, P. S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur, at present posted and working as the Asstt. Teacher on the vacant post in Govt. Basic School, Bariyarpur, Anchal Muraul, District Muzaffarpur… Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, (Primary, Secondary and Adult) Education Department “Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director-cum-Chairman, Education Department, Tirhut Division, Muzaffapur. 4. The District Education officer (D.E.O.), Muzaffarpur… Respondents. ----------- 3. 26.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition reads as follows: “(i) A writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order vide Memo No. 907/Muzaffarpur, dated 3.7.2000, passed by the respondents no. 3 (R.D.D.E.), Tirhut Division Muzaffarpur ( as contained in Annexure-2 of the present writ application) in the light of decision dated 26.6.2000 taken in the meeting of the Divisional Establishment Committee (D.E.C.) Muzaffarpur, whereby and 2 whereunder the “Date of Promotion of I. A. Trained pay scale of petitioner no. 1, 2, and 3 have been reduced and refixed and further, order has been passed to recover the excess payment of amount in I. A. Trained pay scale, from the petitioners which was being paid to the petitioners on a Legal, Proper and Valid order of respondent no. 3 (as contained in Annexures 1, 3 and ) without giving any show cause notices and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. (ii) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondents no. 2 to4, specially the respondents no. 3 (R. D. D. E.) Tirhut Division Muzaffapur) directing them/him to “Not refix” the “Date of Promotion of I. A. Trained Pay Scales” of the petitioners and to “Note Recover” any amount from I. A. Trained scale from the salary of the petitioners which was being given and paid to the petitioners since 1.6.1987 “on a Legal, Proper and valid Order of respondents no. 3 (R.D.D.E.) (as contained in Annexures 1, 3 and 4). (iii) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 to 4, specially, the respondents no. 3 (R.D.D.E.) directing them / him to Recall the aforesaid order (as contained in Annexures-2) and further pass order and direct the respondents no. 2 to 4, specially, the respondents no. 3 (R.D.D.E.) to accept and treat” the Date of Promotion of I. A. Trained Scale” of the petitioners since 1.6.1987 which has been mentioned and stated in the earlier order of Promotion of I. A. Trained scale” and were/ are receiving and have received and are receiving the pay-scale of I. A. Trained uptill now (as contained in Anneuxre 1, 3 and 4). 3 Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the earlier writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to consider the grievance of the petitioners in the matter of grant of I. A. trained scale of pay but the authorities had refused to grant I. A. Trained scale of pay on the ground that persons senior to them had to be granted promotion on account of government decision adjusting agriculture graduate teachers which had left no post for the petitioner for such promotion. Counsel for the petitioners though has not disputed this fact that none of the juniors to the petitioners were given such I. A. trained pay scale but then he would submit that if the Government had taken a policy decision of introducing certain teachers in the cadre by way of policy decision that could not have affected the chances of promotion of the petitioners. Counsel for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned order would submit that now I. A. trained scale has been abolished in the year 1993 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and therefore the issue relates only with regard to the consideration of earlier date of promotion if 4 the same could be admissible to the petitioners. He would submit that the respondents after making such exercise have found that prior to 1993 since the senior of the petitioners were to be given such promotion and they had to be first accommodated, there was no place left to give such I. A. trained pay-scale to the petitioners. This Court would find no infirmity in the said stand of the respondent and in fact when the counsel for the petitioners also would not be in a position to show that any junior to the petitioners was granted such I. A. trained pay scale till the same remained in existence prior to 1993, there would be hardly any scope to this Court to interfere in the matter. One thing however must be taken into account that the authorities have also directed for recovery from the salary of the petitioners. In the opinion of this court, if there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners in their being granted earlier I. A. trained scale of pay, which was subsequently cancelled, the petitioners should not be subjected to any recovery. To this limited extent, this matter has to be again looked into by the 5 authority to find out as to whether the petitioners can be made liable for recovery as well. Since no stay order was passed by this Court and recovery may have already been made from the petitioners, all that this Court would do is that if the claim of the petitioners with regard to recovery is allowed, they would be entitled for refund of the recovered amount from salary. Subject to the limited observation made above, this writ petition is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)