IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1173 of 2009 ====================================================== Rajendra Prasad Singh, Son of Bishwanath Singh, Resident of village – Benout, P.S.- Rasoolpur, District – Saran, at present working as in charge Headmaster in Chandra Nayan Project Girl’s High School, Benout. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary Education (Secondary Education) Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Budha Marg, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director Education, Saran Division at Patna. 5. The District Education Officer, Chapra, Saran. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Pd.Singh I, Advocate Mr. Vitesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, AC to AAG3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 04/ 08-09-2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Respondent No. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Chandra Nayan Project Girl’s High School, Benout, vide letter No. 03 dated 27.12.1981. The school in question was inspected by the authorities of the State Govt. for its’ adoption as Project School under the control of State Govt. The assets Patna High Court CWJC No.1173 of 2009 (4) dt.08-09-2011 2 / 7 2 and liabilities of the school were taken over by the State Govt. vide order contained in letter No. 108 dated 12.2.1985. The petitioner was already working in the school. His services were approved by the Screening Committee constituted by the State Govt. headed by the Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar. Petitioner’s case is that despite approval of the services of the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the school the matter relating to payment of salary was being delayed, as such C.W.J.C. No. 7331 of 1990 was filed by Ravindra Nath Singh, one of the employee of the school. The matter was finally decided vide order dated 17.12.1990 and a direction was issued for holding meeting of the Screening Committee and make necessary recommendation within three months. In the light of the direction of the High Court the decision was taken by the respondents and vide order contained in Memo No. 837 dated 30.8.1991, the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna in the light of the departmental letter No. 108 dated 12.2.1985 recognized the service of the petitioner and similarly situated other teachers and non-teaching employees with effect from the date on which the school was adopted as Project School i.e. 12.2.1985. So far payment of salary is Patna High Court CWJC No.1173 of 2009 (4) dt.08-09-2011 3 / 7 3 concerned, it was made payable with effect from 1.1.1989 for the period prior to it the benefits were allowed to the petitioner and other employees on notional basis. Petitioner started receiving his salary in the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- . This application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to grant him benefit of higher scale of pay with effect from 12.2.1997 in pursuance of the order issued by R.D.D.E., Saran vide order contained in Memo No. 1253 dated 27.6.1998. Petitioner’s case is that this benefit has been allowed to other similarly situated teachers, they have been given monetary benefits but the petitioner is being discriminated by the authorities. Only eligibility for granting higher scale of pay is the Kalawadhi of 12 years with effect from the date of recognition of service. Since, petitioner’s service has been recognized vide Annexure-3 with effect from 12.2.1985, he has completed his Kalawadhi in the year, 1997 and is entitled for grant of higher scale of pay with effect from that date, on completion of Kalawadhi. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Director, Secondary Education, Respondent No. 3 it has been stated that in view of the Supreme Court decision passed in S.L.P. No. Patna High Court CWJC No.1173 of 2009 (4) dt.08-09-2011 4 / 7 4 6614-663 of 2000 the petitioner as well as other teaching employees of Project Schools, adopted in the second phase in 1984-85 are not entitled for counting of their length of service from any earlier date than 1.1.1989. They have been allowed payment of salary as well as other monetary benefits, only with effect from 1.1.1989, as such any prevision service is not countable for 12 years Kalawadhi. It has also been stated that in 1984-85 the Government vide letter No. 12/C dated 25.01.1985 identified 300 blocks, which did not have any girls high school, 75 schools were selected by the Government vide letter No. 108 dated 12.2.1985 and Committee constituted for the purposes of selection of school, which were selected in the phase 1984-85. For the purposes of approval of services and payment of salary of teaching and non-teaching staffs the Govt. constituted a Committee and it was decided that teachers shall be paid their salary with effect from 1.1.1989. So far approval of services of teaching and non-teaching employees of the schools are concerned, it has been stated that the as per the decision of the Full Bench and Supreme Court, a final decision has been taken that teaching and non-teaching employees of such schools will not be entitled for any benefit prior to 1.1.1989. Patna High Court CWJC No.1173 of 2009 (4) dt.08-09-2011 5 / 7 5 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement made in the counter affidavit is misleading to the effect that issue involved before the Full Bench as well as before the Supreme Court was completely different, that related to the appointment made on the post of teaching and non-teaching employees in Project Schools adopted in 1984-85, beyond the sanctioned strength and approval of their service as well as allowing other benefits to such teaching and non-teaching employees. Petitioner does not come within this category. Any decision taken in respect to such employees will not have any application in his case. I find that vide Annexure-3 in the light of order passed in the earlier writ application, the Director, Secondary Education had already taken a decision with regard to recognizing the services of teaching and non-teaching employees within sanctioned strength of such schools, adopted as Project Schools in the first phase. The decision was that their services will be recognized with effect from the date of their appointment or with effect from the date the school in question was adopted as Project school by the Govt. The later date being convenient to the State Govt., petitioner’s service was recognized with effect from the date of the adoption of Patna High Court CWJC No.1173 of 2009 (4) dt.08-09-2011 6 / 7 6 school in question as Project School by the State Govt. in the year 1985. The Govt. further decided that in order to avoid additional monetary burden, the period of service prior to 1989 will be recognized for notional monetary benefit but for other benefits like promotional benefits it will be the date of recognizing their services i.e. 12.2.1985. Petitioner’s counsel submits that Annexure-3 makes it clear that except monetary benefit for all other purposes recognition of petitioner’s service was accepted with effect from 12.2.1985 i.e. the date of adoption of the school as Project School. Subsequently, petitioner’s date of appointment cannot be shifted back to 1989, if he is claiming the benefit of fixation of his salary in the higher scale of pay for which eligibility is 12 years service. Once his service is recognized with effect from 12.2.1985, for counting the Kalawadhi and length of service of 12 years, that can be the only date for consideration the length of service. The decision taken by the Director, Secondary Education annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit will not have any application in the case of the petitioner. I find substance in the submissions of petitioner’s counsel. In the facts and the circumstance, the Director, Patna High Court CWJC No.1173 of 2009 (4) dt.08-09-2011 7 / 7 7 Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Respondent No. 3 is directed to allow the benefit of higher scale of pay to the petitioner with effect from 12.2.1997 i.e. the date on which he completed 12 years of his service, which is a requisite criteria for allowing such benefit. Respondent No. 3 will issue order in this regard within eight weeks from the date of communication/production of this order and make payment of entire dues to the petitioner on account of allowing higher scale of pay with effect from 12.2.1997. This application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J)