IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2874 of 1998 1.TRIVENI PRASAD son of late Bhajan Lal, presently posted as an Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Surya Pura, P.s. Bodh Gaya, District Gaya. 2.Smt. Jahan Aara Khan, w/o Abdul Sattar Khan, presently posted as an Assistant Teacher in Girls Middle School Ramana, P.S. Civil Line Gaya, District Gaya. 3.Shyam Sunder Prasad Singh, son of Late Bene Prasad presently working as an Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Janakpur, District Gaya. 4.Sastyendra Kumar, son of Sri Mahabir Singh presently working as an Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya Khajahanpur P.O. Khajahan pur District Gaya. 5.Prem Lata Kumari, wife of Sri Ram Bhajoo Sharma, presently working as an Assistant Teacher in middle school Morarpur, Nagar Nigam, District Gaya. 6.Jagat Narain Prasad, son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad, presently working as an Assistant Teacher in middle school Bhore Bhanpur, P.S. Muffasil, DistrictGaya. 7.Smt. Leela sinha, wife of Sri surendra Prasad Sinha, presently working as an Assistant Teacher in Girls Middle School, Ramana, P.S.Civil Lines, District Gaya. 8.Shambhu Sharan Pandey, son of Late Jagdish Pandey, presently working as an Assistant Teacher in Middle school Panhayati Akhara, District Gaya. 9. Shyam Kishore Prasad Sharma, son of late Sukh Lal Prasad Sharma, presently working as an Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, Khajahar pur, District Gaya. 10.Md. Farid Uddin Ansari, son of Md. Abdullah, presently working as an Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Madhya Vidayalaya Rasulpur, Anchal Chandauti, District Gaya. 11.Chandra Shekhar Prasad, son of Sri Bisheshwar Prasad, presently working as an Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, shiksha Mandir, District Gaya. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri S.N. Viswas, son of not known to the petitioner, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3.Sri Pratyush Sinha, son of not known to the petitioners, the finance Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4.Sri S.K.Negi, son of not known to the petitioners, the Commissioner-cum Secretary, Human Resources 2 Development Department, Govt.. of Bihar, new secretariat, Patna. 5.Sri Deepak Kumar, son of not known to the petitioners Human Resources Development Department, Govt of Bihar, New secretariat, Patna. 6.Sri Amrit Lal Meena, Son of not known to the petitioner, the District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Gaya. 7.Sri Ashok Kumar, son of not known to the petitioners, the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya, District Gaya. ----------- 5 2/4/2010 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The complaint as with regard to non compliance of order of this Court is in respect of paragraph-9 of the order dated 8.7.1997 in C.W.J.C. No.7322 of 1994. In order to appreciate the said contention, it would be necessary to quote paragraph nos.8 and 9 of the judgment which reads as follows:- “8.In this background I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned resolution dated 18th of December, 1989 so far as it relates to revised scale of pay of Matric trained/Intermediate trained/Untrained Graduate Assistant Teachers are concerned. 9.So far the seniority is concerned, the matter has not been properly pleaded in this case and so I am not inclined to give any specific finding as to whether the petitioner will retain seniority over one or other. However, it is needless to say that if the petitioners were senior to a class of Assistant Teachers being in the higher grade scale post then in that case their seniority cannot be effected by virtue of recommendation and acceptance of the Pay Revision Committee’s report, i.e, because of revision of scale of pay. If, scale of pay of employees has been revised the same cannot affect seniority and if such seniority is allowed to be affected then in that case the revision of scale of pay is to be held to be arbitrary. For this reason I declared that the seniority which the petitioners were maintaining prior to the impugned resolution dated 18th of December, 1989 over their juniors cannot be affected by virtue of the impugned resolution dated 18th of December, 1989, which relates to revision of scale of pay. This apart I may make it clear that if by virtue of revision of scale of pay some persons, who are junior to 3 the petitioners prior to such revision, have been provided with time scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600/-, then in that case seniors, including the petitioners if any, though may not be provided with such higher scale of pay, but earlier provided with pay protection, so that they may maintain parity of pay pocket as they were maintaining prior to such revision of pay. If, any of the petitioners have got such grievance he may move before an appropriate authority for the redressal of such grievance.” Mr. Mangalam would submit that there was clear pronouncement in the aforesaid order of this Court that the petitioners who were in the pay scale of Rs.730-1080/- prior to the Resolution of Finance Department dated 18.12.1989 were entitled to get the salary on the higher scale of Rs.1400-2600/- inasmuch as juniors to them had already been given that pay scale. Mr. Mangalam, therefore is of the view that by not giving such pay scale to the petitioners, in spite of representation filed by them before the competent authority, by itself will amount to contempt. In the considered opinion of this Court, submission of Mr. Mangalam cannot be accepted for more than one reasons. First of all, this Court had clearly held that the resolution dated 18.12.1989 so far it relates to revised pay scale of Matric trained/Intermediate trained/Untrained Graduate Assistant Teachers, they could not be interfered in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. Secondly, this Court had found insufficient pleadings as with regard to seniority claimed by the petitioners. Having said so, this Court had made a declaration that the seniority to which the petitioners were maintaining prior to the issuance of Resolution dated 18.12.1989 over their juniors could not be taken away by virtue of such resolution inasmuch as the 4 same which related to revision of scale of pay only. Having said so, this Court however again made it clear that the petitioners would not be entitled for a pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- and all they could be only provided with only pay protection if any juniors to them are drawing higher pay. Now in this background from perusal of representations filed by the petitioners vide Annexures 3,4 and 5 it becomes clear that not a single person has been named by the petitioners who is junior to them and yet is receiving higher pay which could be equalised by their giving them pay protection. That being so, this contempt petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)