Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 255 (JHR)

Ursula Kujur v. State Of Bihar

2001-04-11

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for giving her senior scale in accordance with the policy decision issued by letter No. 3088 dated 29.11.1995 by the Director, Primary Education. Government of Bihar. 2. The petitioners case is that she was appointed as Middle trained assistant teacher in 1972 in the school namely, R.C. Middle School, Soparam. P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi, The petitioner got the matric trained scale with effect from 1.4.1980. In 1995 the Government of Bihar, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department issued a policy decision dated 29.11.1995 whereby teachers of the non-Government aided Minority Primary Schools, who had rendered continuous services for 12 years, are entitled to get senior scale in terms of the policy decision. The petitioner filed representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi. The case of the petitioner was approved by the Secretary of the School, though on certain conditions and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Education, Ranchi. It is contended that the petitioner after filing several representations, requested the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi to take a final decision but nothing has been done. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the management of the school. In the counter-affidavit it has not been disputed that the Government of Bihar, Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education has Issued a policy decision which lays down that teachers of such non-aided schools, who rendered continuous 12 years of service, are entitled to get senior, scale and the school has been directed to furnish details of such teachers. From perusal of the entire counter affidavit it does not appear that the management has any objection with regard to entitlement of the petitioner to get the benefit under the policy of 1995. The only grievance of the management is that the petitioner was paid advance to the tune of Rs. 32,290. This amount of advance was given to the petitioner in between December, 1983 to March, 1983. Sufficient documents have been annexed with the counter-affidavit which shows the payment of the aforesaid advance to the petitioner. 4. The only grievance of the management is that the petitioner was paid advance to the tune of Rs. 32,290. This amount of advance was given to the petitioner in between December, 1983 to March, 1983. Sufficient documents have been annexed with the counter-affidavit which shows the payment of the aforesaid advance to the petitioner. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that when the petitioner became entitled to the pay of scale benefit under the aforesaid policy, there is no reason why the Superintendent of Education, Ranchi will not take a decision in the matter. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and take a decision for payment of senior scale to the petitioner. Such decision must be taken within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Before parting with the order, I must observe that when the petitioner was paid advance by the management during the period when she was not getting salary from the Government, then there is no reason why she will not refund the amount particularly when she has already got the salary from the Government some time in 1995-96. However, taking into consideration all these facts, I allow six months more time to the petitioner to refund the amount legally payable to the management. During that period the management shall not take any action against the petitioner for non-payment of advance. It is needless to say that if the petitioner fails to comply the direction of this Court then management will be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ application is disposed of. 7. Application disposed of.