Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 854 (JHR)

Brij Bihari Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2003-07-21

P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, R.K.MERATHIA

body2003
ORDER 1. Heard counsel on both sides. 2. The appellants are the petitioners in CWJC No. 1075 of 1986(R). At the point of time with which we are concerned, they were untrained graduate Science Teachers. They challenged before this Court the order by which then pay scales were fixed on the basis of the pay revision with particular scales of pay. Their complaint was that earlier on the basis of the report of the pay committee, they had been permitted to draw their salaries at higher scales of pay and thus the reduction in their pay scale was unjustified and that too without giving them an opportunity of being heard. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, it was noticed that two other writ petitions, CWJC 1010 of 1982(R) and 1011 of 1982(R) relating to the teachers of Dhanbad district were already pending CWJC No. 1010 of 1982(R) related to the B.Sc. untrained teachers while CWJC No. 1011 of 1982(R) related to I.A. untrained teachers. This Court directed that the writ petition, CWJC No. 1075 of 1986(R) be also heard along with those writ petitions. 4. CWJC Nos. 1010 and 1011 of 1982(R) were heard separately and were dismissed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, CWJC No. 1010 of 1982(R) has no relevance since it related to the graduate untrained teachers, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the fixation was proper, that there was no merit in the writ petition and that was liable to be dismissed. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed. The other writ petition was also dismissed. These decision became final. 5. When the present writ petition came up for hearing the only contention raised was that the principles of natural justice have been violated since the petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard before reducing or re- fixing their pay scales. The learned Single Judge after noticing the argument that was raised, held that there was no question of violation of the principles of natural justice while the Government accepted the recommendations with regard to the pay scales and fixed the pay scales of such teachers. Taking a note of the decision rendered in CWJC Nos. 1010 of 1982 and 1011 of 1982(R) the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 6. Taking a note of the decision rendered in CWJC Nos. 1010 of 1982 and 1011 of 1982(R) the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to argue various questions including the question whether the decision in Vijay Shankar Mishra v. The State of Bihar, 1998 BLJR 553, relied on, was applicable or not, to the case on hand. Learned counsel further contended that pending writ petitions, and the appeal, some teachers have become trained teachers. That aspect has no relevance to the subject matter of the writ petition giving rise to this appeal. It was held by the learned Single Judge in CWJC Nos. 1010 and 1011 of 1982(R) that there was no order of the Government fixing pay scales as such. It was only the recommendation by the Department. It was found that there were serious irregularities in making the recommendations and in suggesting the pay scales. It was in that situation that the Government decided to fix the pay scales as indicated by the impugned order. It was in that context that the learned Single Judge held that there was no question of violation of the principles of natural justice involved in this Case. 7. We are satisfied that the approach and the conclusion of the learned Single Judge is correct. There is no reason to interfere. That apart, as regards the similarly situated teachers in the District of Dhanbad, the decision has become final. A decision to favour only the teachers of a particular District would be unjust. In view of the finally, attained by the decision in CWJC No. 1010 of 1982(R), in any event, it is not proper for this Court to interfere in this appeal. 8. The learned Single Judge has given an opportunity to the appellants to make there representation as regards the excess amount drawn by them. In that situation we are not satisfied that any interference is called for in this appeal. 9. We confirm the decision of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal.