Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 626 (PAT)

Sri Kamdeo Kuwar v. State Of Bihar

2005-07-22

S.K.KATRIAR

body2005
Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Gandhi for the petitioner, and Mr. Alok Kumar, learned junior counsel to Standing Counsel No. 1 for the respondents. 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government with effect from 31.1.1996, while posted as Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Shiromani Tola, Parbatta south, Khagaria. The petitioner complains before this Court that the differential amount of salary for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 deposited in the petitioners provident fund account under a general policy decision of the State Government has not till date been paid. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition. 3. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that the petitioner has joined the Primary School, Temtha, way back in 1954 as a school teacher. It was a privately managed school governed by its Managing Committee. In view of the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking over of Control) Act 1976 (Bihar Act 30 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Elementary Schools managed by the District Board, Zila Parishad, the Municipal Board, and the Patna Municipal Corporation, and those opened under the Expansion and Improvement scheme shall be deemed to have been taken over by the State Government with effect from the 1st day of January, 1971 in terms of Sec. 3(1) of the Act. In view of the provisions of Sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Aided Elementary Schools, the Managing Committees of which have handed over voluntarily the control of the school to the Government, shall be taken over by the State Government with effect from the date which shall be determined by the District Committee referred to in Sub-sec. (4) for this purpose. 4. It is manifest that the petitioner belonged to a private school managed by its private Managing Committee and is obviously, therefore, not covered under Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the said Act. It is covered by Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 3 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has not purposely stated in the writ petition the date on which the State Government had taken over the school. (1) of sec. 3 of the said Act. It is covered by Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 3 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has not purposely stated in the writ petition the date on which the State Government had taken over the school. The State Government had granted dearness allowance at central rates, and the differential amount was directed to be deposited in the general provident fund account of such employees whose schools were nationalised with effect from 1.1.1971. The petitioners erstwhile school was obviously, nationalised from a later date. He, therefore, is not entitled to the benefit claimed. 5. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.