Chandra Kishore Jha v. State Of Bihar — 1995 DIGILAW 127 (PAT)

Judgment S. K. Homchaudhuri, J. 1. The prayer of the petitioner in this petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to grant the petitioner the pay scale of Subordinate Education services (Gr.), namely, Rs.220-400/-with effect from 1.4.1968 with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the Subordinate Education Service in Lower Division as Sanskrit Teacher (Jyotisacharya) in the year 1958 by the director, Public Instruction, Bihar, by order dated 30.1.1958 and, thereafter, he was confirmed in the said post by order dated 16.2.1962. According to the petitioner in the year 1964, the government of Bihar, Department of education, decided that the Acharyas and Fazils should be treated as equivalent to the Trained Graduates. 3. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition, the petitioner has stated as follows: "6. That by another resolution of government of Bihar dated 4th May, 1968 model Scale of Acharya was fixed at Rs.220-9-310-EB-400/- and the same given into effect from 1.4.1968.7. That the petitioner in accordance with annexure-3 is entitled to salary in the pay scale of Rs.220-400/- from 1.4.1968. " But on perusal of a copy of the resolution dated 4.5.1968, annexed as annexure-3 to the petitioner, I find that the contentions made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition are not correct, inasmuch as, it is apparent from the last paragraph of the resolution dated 4.5.1968 that the acharyas and Fazils were yet to be granted the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.220-9-310-EB-400. The last paragraph of the resolution dated 4.5.1968 is translated copy of which is supplied by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is as follows: "acharyas and Fazils who are equated with trained graduates will not get the replacement scale of pay of Rs.220-9- 310-EB-400 for trained graduates, Separate instruction will, however, issue in respect of manner in which they will be brought on the new scales of pay. Indicating the different stages of staggering. Pending issue of final order in this regard, acharyas and Fazils may be given on Ist April, 1968 and ad-hoc increase of Rs.15/- in the salary which they would have got in the existing scale on that date. " 4. Indicating the different stages of staggering. Pending issue of final order in this regard, acharyas and Fazils may be given on Ist April, 1968 and ad-hoc increase of Rs.15/- in the salary which they would have got in the existing scale on that date. " 4. In paragraph-9 of the petition, the petitioner has contended that as has been dicriminated in the matter of grant of said pay scale with effect from 1.4.1968; inasmuch as other Acharya teachers, namely, Shri Nirmala narayan Jha of Zila School, Dhanbad, purandar Jha of Government High school, Gardanibagh, Patna as well as acharya and Fazil family Teachers of government Schools and Non-Government Schools started receiving the salary in the pay scale of Rs.220/- to rs.400/- with effect from 1.4.1968. But the petitioner was denied the pay scale although he was also entitled to get the said scale from 1.4.1968. The petitioner has stated in paragraph 10 of the petition that he made several representations to the Government for granting him the pay scale of Rs.220/-to 400/- with effect from 1.4.1968. The petitioner, however, has not made any specific averments as regards the date of the representations and the authorities before whom the representations were made. 5. The petitioners further case is that the pay scale of Rs.220/- to 400/-was revised to Rs.387/- to 600/- by the government by resolution dated 1.1.1971 and the petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs.387/- to Rs.600/- with effect from 1.1.1976. The petitioner approached this court in a writ petition as late as in the year 1979, which was registered as C. W. J. C. No.247 of 1979. This court, by order dated 6.8.1979, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with certain observation and direction. The order dated dated 6.8.1979 of this court is as follows: "6.8.79 The petitioner in this case, who is a Jyotishacharya employed in the Government sanskrit High School, Ranchi. claimed the pay scale of a trained graduate under some decisions of the Government. He has been allowed that scale with effect from 1.1.1976 but he claims that scales with effect from 1.4.1968. The petitioner had also filed some representations before the Chief Minister, which was forwarded to the department on 17.8.1976 (vide Annexure-6 ). This is a departmental matter and the petitioner should be able to get his relief through his department itself, if he is entitled to it. The petitioner had also filed some representations before the Chief Minister, which was forwarded to the department on 17.8.1976 (vide Annexure-6 ). This is a departmental matter and the petitioner should be able to get his relief through his department itself, if he is entitled to it. the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, agrees that he will file a representation before the department concerned containing full details of his claims so, the department is directed to dispose of the representation within a period of three months from the receipt thereof. The department will be well advised to give him a hearing if he prays for. In view of this observation the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application. This application is, accordingly, permitted to be withdrawn. " After the order of this court was passed, the petitioner made representation before the Director of Public instructions, Education Department, government of Bihar, Patna, which was ultimately rejected and the order of rejection was communicated by the impugned letter dated 15.4.1988-a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 1 to the petition. 6 By the impugned order, the petitioner was intimated that the government Order No.1438 dated 4.5.1968, on which the petitioner placed reliance in support of his claim for grant of higher pay scale with effect from 1.4.1968, was applicable to non-Government State Subsidised high/higher Secondary Multipurpose school and was not applicable to the government Schools and their working teachers and that as per the seniority list, the petitioner was not entitled for promotion at the material time after filling up posts reserved for the candidates of Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribe Community. 7. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition have denied the allegation of the petitioner that he has been discriminated in the matter of grant of the said pay scale of Rs.220-Rs.400/- with effect from 1.4.1968. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents have contended that all the teachers working in government Sanskrit High Schools were brought in the cadre of the subordinate Education Service with effect from 1.1.1976 and, accordingly, the petitioner, along with similarly situated person, was granted the pay scale of the cadre of Subordinate Education service with effect from 1.1.1976. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents have contended that all the teachers working in government Sanskrit High Schools were brought in the cadre of the subordinate Education Service with effect from 1.1.1976 and, accordingly, the petitioner, along with similarly situated person, was granted the pay scale of the cadre of Subordinate Education service with effect from 1.1.1976. The pettiioner was granted "subordinate education Service in the pay scale of rs.387/- to 600/- with effect from 1.1.1976 as per approved of Government of Bihar, Finance Department, and, as such, the claim of the petitioner regarding the said pay scale with effect from 1.4.1968 had rightly been rejected. The petitioner filed rejoined to the counter-affidavit and in paragraph 6 thereof has contended that the statement made in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit was wrong and misleading. 8. Learned Counsel for the pettiioner submitted that the petitioner has arbitrarily been denied the pay scale of Trained Graduate Teacher with effect from 1.4.1968 and consequently he has suffered perpetual loss of pay on and from 1.4.1968. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason and ground, on which the respondents have rejected the prayer of the petitioner, are not all tenable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of haryana State Adhyapak Sangh V/s. State of Haryana? reported in A. I. R.1988 s. C.1663. In the said case, until 1979, the State of Haryana was following the principle of parity between the teachers in aided private schools and government Schools in the matter of pay scales and other emoluments as per the recommendations of Kothari commission. The State met the increased expenditure entirely in regard to pay and dearness allowance. The 1979, the pay scale of teachers in government Schools was revised by the State as per recommendations of the Pay Commission; but in the case of the teachers of aided Schools, the revision was given to effect after two years. The State met the increased expenditure entirely in regard to pay and dearness allowance. The 1979, the pay scale of teachers in government Schools was revised by the State as per recommendations of the Pay Commission; but in the case of the teachers of aided Schools, the revision was given to effect after two years. On the facts of the ease, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the teachers of the aided schools must be paid the same pay scale and Dearness allowance as teachers in Government schools for the entire period claimed by the petitioners and that the expenditure on that account should be apportioned between the State and the management in the same proportion in which they shared the burden of the existing emoluments of the teachers. 9. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused the contents of the petition, affidavit-in-opposition and the rejoinder thereto. The statements made in the writ-petition and the rejoinder are vague and devoid of material facts. So also the contentions made in the affidavit-in- opposition by the respondents. It is clear from the last paragraph of the resolution dated 4.5.1968 (Annexure-3) that the acharyas and Fazils, who were equated with trained graduates, were yet to be granted replacement scale of pay of rs.220/- to 400/- as paid to the trained graduates. The petitioner has neither made any statement nor annexed any document granting the replacement scale of pay of Rs.220/- to 400/- to Acharyas and Fazils. Annexure 4, on which the petitioner has placed reliance, speaks of revision of pay scale of members of Subordiante Education service and not grant of the replacement scale of pay for the trained graduates to the Acharyas and Fazils with effect from 1.4.1968. Although the petitioner has contended that he was discriminated in the matter of grant of pay scale and cited names of some teachers of Acharyas and Fazils of some schools, but he has not stated as to by which orders, those teachers, whose names were mentioned in paragraph 9 of the petition, were granted pay scale of Rs.220/- to 400/-. Although the petitioner has contended that he was discriminated in the matter of grant of pay scale and cited names of some teachers of Acharyas and Fazils of some schools, but he has not stated as to by which orders, those teachers, whose names were mentioned in paragraph 9 of the petition, were granted pay scale of Rs.220/- to 400/-. There is no specific averment in the petition that the petitioner was similarly situated with those teachers named in paragraph 9 of the petition, whereas, the respondents in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition have contended that the teachers working in Government Sanskrit High Schools were brought in the cadre of the Subordinate Education Service with effect from 1.1.1976 only. 10. The petitioners claim has become state due to laches on his part in pursuing his remedy inasmuch as according to the petitioner he was denied the right to the pay scale which accrued to him in 1968, but he approached this court for the first time in 1979. Besides, as already observed, the petitioners contention about pursuing remedy by making representations is casual and vague. Laches on the part of the petitioner writ large on the facts of the case. 11. For the reasons stated above, i am inclined to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayee for at this belated state. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. I make no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.