IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7112 of 2007 Naresh Prasad, Son of Shri Baidyanath Mahto, Resident of village - Katari, P O - Katari, P S - Sheikhpura, Dist - Sheikhpura presently Residing at By Pass Road, Near Redcross Societies, P O - Sheikhpura, Dist - Sheikhpura - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Director (Secondary Education), Education Department, Budh Marg, Patna 2 The Director (Secondary Education), Education Department, Budh Marg, Patna 3 The District Education Officer, District Education Office, Sheikhpura 4 The Head Master, D M High School, Sheikhpura - Respondents *** For the petitioner : M/s Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr Advocate & Binod Bihari Sinha, Alok Kumar No 1, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S C XVI & A K Mishra For the A G, Bihar : Mr S M Ehtesham *** 6 16.02.2009 The petitioner superannuated as an Assistant Teacher and is being denied continuity of service for the purposes of pensionary benefits. He has challenged the same. Counter affidavits have been filed and the State has sought to justify the break in view of Government Circular dated 18.07.1992. As counter affidavits and rejoinders have been filed, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The petitioner worked as an Assistant Teacher from 25.08.1975 to 01.07.1978 at Luthran High School, Gumla, a Government High School. He then resigned and on 03.07.1978 joined D M High School, Sheikhpura from where he superannuated. This 2 School was also a Government School. As evident from Annexure-4, the letter from the Office of the Accountant General, this period between resigning from one Government High School and joining another Government High School of two days is being treated as break in service and, therefore, for the purposes of pensionary benefits, the earlier service is not being counted. Shri Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Government vide Circular No 519 dated 02.07.1983 (Annexure-5) had, inter alia, provided in Clause 7 thereof that a period of 15 days is to be granted and would not be treated as break in service if a Teacher leaves one institution to join another institution. He submits that here the break was only of two days. He then relies on Government Circular No 581 dated 15.01.1982 in which Government has specifically considered that the case of Teachers is different from other employees and, as such, the same parameters cannot be applied. With reference to again Clause 7 of the said Circular, it is stated that the Government decision is that if a Teacher resigns from one institution to join another that would not be treated as break in service. He then refers to the notification as referred to by the Accountant General being notification No 636 dated 18th July, 1992 which is Annexure-10 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner. I may state that though counter affidavits have been filed and reference to this notification has been made, the respondents chose not to annex this notification which was the basis of their sheetanchor. Reading Clause 2 and, in particular Ga thereof, the only thing that the said Circular states 3 is that if a Teacher resigns from a Government School to joint another School which gets Government recognition after his joining, it is only in such an eventuality, past service would not be counted and the time between resigning and joining would be treated as break in service. Here the situation is entirely different. Petitioner resigned from one Government School to join another Government School. It is, thus, submitted that the objection of the Accountant General is wholly misconceived. Having considered the matter, I have no option but to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, resignation from a Government School to join another Government School, as seen above, has been held not to be a break. Then noticing that Teachers are a class different from other employees, different parameters have to apply and lastly the Circular of 1992, in my view, has no application to the facts of the petitioner’s case because the petitioner resigned from a Government High School to join a pre-existing Government High School. The Circular of 1992, thus, have no application. That being so, I am left with no option but to hold that there is no break in service and the respondents are dutybound to count the services rendered under the previous School as services for the purposes of retirement benefit. With the said observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)