Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 433 (PAT)

Chandramani Sah v. State Of Bihar

2000-03-16

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2000
Judgment 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for direction on the Respondents to pay salary which is due since 20th February, 1990. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as an Assistant teacher of a Primary School by private Managing Committee on 1st September, 1970. Subsequently, the school was taken over with effect from 1.1.1971 and service of petitioner was approved by the Director, Primary Education on 28th November, 1988. 3. Grievance has been made that the salary which the petitioner was earlier receiving was stopped since 20th February, 1990, on the ground that some enquiry is being conducted at Directorate level. 4. Further, according to the petitioner, though there was a direction given by the Director on 8th December, 1992 to release salary on fulfilment of certain conditions which the petitioner fulfilled, but the salary has not yet been released. 5. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have taken plea that in the districts of Saharsa and Supaul, there are 160 units of Assistant Teachers who have claimed for salary. Out of the same, 148 units are sanctioned against which 117 teachers services have been approved, who are receiving salary. The rest of the teachers working against other 31 sanctioned units are pressing their claim for payment of salary. 6. Admittedly, the salary was with-held since 20th February, 1990 and a general order was issued to make certain enquiry. 7. This Court, vide order dated 10th March, 1999, while allowed the petitioner to file representation before the D.S.E. Saharsa for payment of current salary, direction was given to the Respondents to hold an enquiry into the matter and if enquiry was found pending or initiated against the petitioner, it was ordered to complete such enquiry within two months from the date of representation. 8. Now more than one year has. passed after the order of this Court, but neither any specific enquiry initiated against the petitioner/or in respect of the petitioner, nor the Respondents have released the salary. 9. The counsel for the State made objection that the petitioner was not a trained teacher when he was appointed initially in 1970, but such submission cannot be accepted, his service having taken over and approved with effect from 1.1.1971. 9. The counsel for the State made objection that the petitioner was not a trained teacher when he was appointed initially in 1970, but such submission cannot be accepted, his service having taken over and approved with effect from 1.1.1971. If the petitioner was not trained at one or other time, the Respondents at best can pay untrained scale of pay, but on completion of training, the petitioner will be entitled for trained scale on the basis of other requisite qualifications. 10. In the circumstances, I direct the Director, Primary Education to determine the question relating to payment of salary, which is due since 20th February, 1990 and pay the admitted arrears of salary, at least for the period, the petitioner actually performed the duties, in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the Respondents dispute any claim or part thereof, will give reason and communicate the same to petitioner within the aforesaid period. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.