IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16381 of 2001 SUKHDEO YADAV, S/O LATE BANBALI YADAV, R/O JAINAGAR, P.S.-JAINAGAR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMNET, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DIRECTOR, ADULT EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHUBANI. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 29.07.2009 Yesterday the case was passed over to enable the learned counsels to examine as to whether the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 74 (SC) squarely covers the case of the petitioner also or not. Today learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely covers the case of the petitioner and the petitioner can succeed only to the extent as law laid down in the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of teachers of Secondary/Primary schools. He referred to paragraph 24 to 28 of the judgment to show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the resolution dated 20.2.1993 will have only - 2 - prospective operation and, therefore, any amount paid by way of additional increment to the teachers of the Secondary/Primary schools prior to that date on the basis of mistaken interpretation of Fundamental Rule 22(C) shall not be recovered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also directed that in case of any amount, of period prior to that date, has been recovered from the incumbents, the same shall be paid back to them. Learned State counsel submits that the reliefs to the Secondary/Primary schools were granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court only to that extent and the appeal was accordingly allowed in part. He submits that the same direction may be issued in this case also. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court holds that the petitioner is also entitled to the relief granted to the similarly situated school teachers. In the concluding paragraph of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that no recovery shall be made from any teacher of the schools under the concerned head irrespective of - 3 - the fact whether they have moved this Court or not. It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that recovery made from teachers be refunded to them within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment irrespective of the fact whether they have separately moved the Court or not. In view of the said categorical findings and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this writ application is allowed to the extent of law laid down in the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is directed that the recovery, if any, made from the petitioner, shall be refunded to him within three months from today. With above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)