IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2600 of 2003 1. Chandeshwari Yadav, S/o Sri Janak Lal Yadav, R/o Village + P.S.- Baryahi Post Siheshwar, District- Madhepura. 2. Bhagwat Yadav, S/o Sri Mahavir Prasad Yadav, R/o Village + P.O. Basha, P.S.-Pipra District- Supaul. 3. Upendra Prasad Yadav, S/o Sri Narayan Yadav of Village Lityahi, P.O.-Basaha, P.S.-Pipra, District- Supaul. ……….. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Department, Patna. 3. The Special Secretary, Middle School, Human Resource Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Account Officer, Saharsa. 6. The District Education Officer, Supaul. 7. The Head Master-cum-Drawing Disbursing Office, Middle School, Lityahi, Supaul. 8. The Head Master-cum-Drawing Disbursing Officer, Middle School, Piprahari, District-Supaul. 9. The Head Master-cum-Drawing Disbursing Officer, Ramjidas Middle School, Triweniganj, Supaul. ……… Respondents. ----------- 3. 26-07-2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition reads as follows: “1. That this is an application for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order of quashing of time bound promotion and order of recovery of amount paid and for grant of all consequential benefits and it is further prayed to stay the operation of order of returning of salary.” From the aforementioned prayer and the order of the Headmaster dated 23.10.2002, it appears that the dispute with regard to entitlement of the petitioners in the matter of grant of Time Bound Promotion had cropped up and therefore, the salary of the 2 petitioners was refixed by the District Account Officer, Saharsa vide his order dated 20-08-2001 reducing the basic pay of the petitioners from Rs. 5250/- to 4750/-. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that such an order was passed by the Headmaster without giving any opportunity of hearing and as such the decision for making recovery is illegal and unsustainable. In the counter affidavit the respondents however have taken a plea that whereas the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 will be entitled for any benefit only from the date of 17.1.1981 when their services were approved by the Special Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, petitioner no. 3 will be entitled for his seniority and other benefits from 29-05-1980. Counsel for the State would also submit that in fact from the date of take over of primary school, the earlier service can only be recognized if the order taking over the school and its teachers clearly contemplates giving such retrospective benefit. One thing therefore is clear that the petitioners were given certain benefit and were drawing higher salary but all of a sudden the Headmaster of the School had reduced the same without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Such financial benefit being vested right to the petitioners if being taken away, did require the respondents to follow the principles of natural justice. Today however when this court would find that there was no interim order passed in this case and the entire amount has 3 been recovered in terms of the impugned order, which has already been given effect to, this court would direct the authorities to look into the grievances of the petitioners as with regard to pay fixation in terms of the order of take over of the school. If the order of take over of school can contain a clause of granting previous seniority and financial benefit probably the petitioners may have a case, but if the order of take over of the school was only perspective in nature and their services were also approved by individual order of the Special Secretary of the Education Department as has been asserted in paragraph 3, 4, and 5 of the counter affidavit the amount so recovered from the petitioner will not be required to be refunded to them. In order to expedite the matter, this court would give liberty to the petitioners to file their individual representation enclosing documents along with a copy of this order and the District Superintendent of Education, who upon receipt of such representations would verify the same and place the whole matter with his comments before the District Education Establishment Committee, which will take his final decision in accordance with law. Such exercise however, must be completed by the Committee within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation/ direction, this writ application is disposed of. Sujit (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)