IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.791 of 2004 RAM JEE PRASAD SINGH, Son of late Beshar Singh, resident of village- Sirari, P. S & District- Sheikhpura, presently residing at Professor Colony, Sheikhpura. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Director Secondary Education Board, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Assistant Director. 4. The District Magistrate, Patna. 5. The District Education Officer, Patna. 6. The District Education Officer, Munger. 7. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura. 8. The District Education Officer, Sheikphura. 9. The District Magistrate, Palamu at Jharkhand. 10. The District Education Officer, Palamu, at Jharkhand. 11. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ………Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State: Mr. A. Amanullah, G.A-9, Mr. Anuj Kumar, A.C to G. A-9. 4. 29.10.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also taking into account that the petitioner’s prayer for condoning the break in service of 177 days is of a period prior to 21.05.1974 and that the Government Resolution dated 15.01.1982 in this regard was very clear that such condonation for a period before 21.05.1974 was permissible only for a maximum period of 15 days, this court would not find any error in the impugned order dated 19.03.2002, passed by the Director, Secondary Education refusing to condone the aforesaid 177 days break in service of the petitioner. For a better appreciation of this aspect, the relevant portion of Resolution of the Finance Department dated15.01.1982 is itself quoted hereinbelow: 2 Þ24- fcgkj ljdkj foRr foHkkxA ladYi iVuk] fnukad 15-1-1982 fo"k; %& jktdh;d`r ek/;fed fo|ky; ds f”{kdksa @ f’k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok esa VwV dh {kkfUrA frfFk & 21-5-1974 ds iwoZ izR;sd vjktdh; ek/;fed fo|ky; ,d Lora= bdkbZ Fkk vkSj bu fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f’k{kd ,oa f”{kdsRrj deZpkjh mPprj inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq vFkok lqfo/kktud fo|ky;ksa esa inLFkkiu ds gsrq ,d fo|ky; dh lsok NksM+dj ;k R;kxi= nsdj vU; fo|ky; esa pys tk;k djrs FksA 21-5-1974 ls lHkh vjktdh; ek/;fed fo|ky; (vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa dks NksM+dj) ek/;fed f”{kk cksMZ (vc fo?kfVr) ds v/khu vk x;sA ek/;fed f”{kk cksMZ }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk fd 1974 ds v/;kns”] izs{;kfir gksus ds iwoZofrZ fdlh f”{kd dks ,d fo|ky; ls nwljs fo|ky; tkus esa lsok esa 15 fnuksa ls Øe dh VwV gks rks mUgsa lsok dh Øec)rk ,oa fujUrjrk iznku dh tk;sxhA ¼ 2- frfFk 1-4-1978 rd vjktdh; ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f”{kd ,oa f”{kdsÙkj deZpkfj;ksa dks fofo/k ykHk ;kstuk izkIr Fkh ftlds vUrxZr isa”u Lohd`r djus esa 24 ekg rd lsok Hkax dh vof/k dks {kkfUr djus dk vf/kdkj jkT; ljdkj dks FkkA Þ Learned counsel for the petitioner would however try to make out a case by placing reliance on paragraph-2 of the above said resolution which according to him had envisaged the condonation of break in service for a period of 24 months. In the opinion of this court paragraphs 1 and 2 of the resolution have to be read together and in tandem. From the simultaneous reading of the two paragraphs of the aforesaid Government Resolution, it becomes clear that the period prior to the Ordinance i.e. before 21.05.1974 each of the High School was an unit and the maximum period of condonation of break in service was only for a period of 15 days. Subsequently when the Ordinance was promulgated on 21.05.1974 and the recognized schools came under the control of Secondary Education Board, the triple benefit scheme 3 also became available to all the teaching employees of the such schools. Thus the Government had treated the period after 21.05.1974 separately by also providing a period upto two years maximum for condonation of break in service. The said classification in fact is based on a rationale and reasonable differentia and therefore this court is not in a position to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the said Resolution of Finance Department dated 15.01.1982 was either discriminatory in nature or was inapplicable to the case of the petitioner. That being so this court would find no merit in the writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Anjani/Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J )