IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9106 of 2009 JAI PRAKASH PANDEY, S/O LATE BANGALI PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.-SARDIHA, P.S.-BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTRICT-SIWAN, AT PRESENT POSTED AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL, SARDIHA, ANCHAL-BHAGWANPUR HAT-2, DISTRICT- SIWAN. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN. 5. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION AT CHAPRA. 6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM- CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, SIWAN. 7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SIWAN. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Umesh Kr.Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr.Anil Kumar Sinha, AC to SC-III. ----------- 3 27.08.2010 As per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school concerned on 20.04.1982. At that point of time he was not having training qualification and was only having the qualification of Intermediate. Therefore, he was placed in the Matric Trained Scale. In 1988-89 on the orders of the competent authorities, he was sent for in service training which he completed and appeared in the examination in 1990. The result of the 2 examination was published on 16.03.1992. In the meanwhile, vide resolution of the Finance Department no. 6022F (2) dated 18.12.1989 a new pay scale was introduced with effect from 01.01.1986 for teachers of the school and others. The new pay scale was graded into 6 grades. Grade-I of the revised pay scale was Rs.1200-2040 which became payable to Matric Trained/Intermediate Untrained/Intermediate Trained/Graduate Untrained Teachers. Grade-II was senior scale of Rs.1400-2600 which was to be given after 12 years of service. As the petitioner was Intermediate Untrained on 01.01.1986 he was given revised pay scale of Grade-I i.e. Rs.1200-2040. On completion of 12 years of service, his case was considered by the District Education Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 02.06.1995 and, as the petitioner had completed 12 years of service in Grade-I and also acquired the qualification of training, the Committee resolved to promote the petitioner to senior scale of Rs.1400-2600 with effect from completion of 12 years of service by him. The said resolution of the Committee is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ 3 application which shows that the date of grant of Grade-I scale to the petitioner is 01.01.1986 and the date of grant of senior scale is 01.01.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of this promotion petitioner has not been given the monetary benefits. Hence this writ. A counter affidavit has been filed by the present District Superintendent of Education, Siwan. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in terms of 1993 Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to Grade-I scale from 01.01.1986 as he had not acquired the qualification of training on that date and he will be entitled to that Grade only with effect from 16.03.1992 when he acquired the qualification of training. For this submission, the District Superintendent of Education has relied upon Rule 13 of the Rules, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure- R/1. Rule 13 speaks that any untrained teacher shall not be entitled to promotion from Grade-I upto Grade-VIII. However, the fact that his case was placed before the 4 District Education Establishment Committee, which is apparently empowered under the Rules for fixation of pay scales and grant of promotions to the teachers of the school, is not denied. The resolution of the Establishment Committee is on record as Annexure-4. In the teeth of this resolution of the Establishment Committee, the present District Superintendent of Education has no locus to challenge the promotion of the petitioner and deny petitioner the benefits of this resolution. Therefore, the stand of the District Superintendent of Education in his counter affidavit is fit to be ignored in view of the said resolution of the Establishment Committee. It is not stated in the counter affidavit that this resolution has been rescinded, modified or withdrawn in respect of the petitioner at least. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to all the monetary benefits in view of the said resolution of the Establishment Committee, as contained in Annexure-4. As a result, this writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to act 5 upon the said resolution of the Committee, if the same is accepted by the Committee as correct, and pay all monetary benefits of the same preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims of the petitioner and orders have been passed only on the basis of said resolution of the Establishment Committee. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)