IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6428 of 2009 LAL BAHADUR SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s Pramod Mishra and Pragull Chandra Thakur, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate -------- 2. 20.05.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The claim in this writ application is for arrears of salary as Panchayat Teacher. The petitioners preferred an application before the Appellate Authority which commenced hearing of the same and did so till 30.12.2008. Specific statement has been made in Para 22 of the writ application that on 12.1.2009 the Appellate Authority has disposed off the matter that he had no jurisdiction to decide the issues of salary. The submission is that the certified copy is still not being made available and the petitioners have had to seek the reasons under the Right to Information Act, which is still elusive. Counsel for the State submits that there is no order of Appellate Authority refusing to exercise jurisdiction and therefore the writ application is premature. He next submits that under the Rules creating the Appellate Authority it does not appear that he has been given power to hear issues of salary. The Rules creating the Appellate Authority in 2008, by amendment of the earlier rules of 2006, states that his jurisdiction shall be with regard to “matters related to appointment”. If the rule makers wanted it to be confined strictly to the issue of appointment only it would have confined the 2 language to the use of the word „appointment‟ and „not matters related to appointment‟. It is apparent that the word „appointment‟ has been used as a generic term and shall take within its ambit all matters connected and consequential to appointment. Salary is an entitlement dependent and consequent upon appointment. This Court has no hesitation in holding that salary comes within the ambit of the generic term appointment or in any event, matters relating to appointment. This Court therefore holds that the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction to hear issues with regard to salary also. In taking this view this Court is compelled to take into consideration the fact of the manner in which the issues with regard to appointment and service condition of teachers are coming before this Court. It is virtually in the form of an epidemic. Epidemic creates casualty giving little time for treatment. If there is an epidemic before this Court and the patient has an alternative remedy, the duty of this Court is to ensure that he is given timely treatment and not allowed to die. The Appellate Authority has been created district-wise. Issues of salary raise issues of fact from service records. This will be more easily available in the district headquarters and issues of fact can also be examined expeditiously. This Court therefore holds that the Appellate Authority is required to decide the petitioners‟ claim of salary after hearing all concerned. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 12.1.2009 urged on behalf of the petitioners though not on record therefore 3 shall be no impediment in compliance of this order by the Authority. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)