Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 939 (PAT)

Ras Bihari Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2006-10-16

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. As the common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 3. Although Annexure-6 has been made the basis on behalf of petitioners for claiming higher pay scale pursuant to recommendations of the 4th Pay Revision Committee report but learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the same Bench which passed annexure-6 subsequently chose to follow the order dated 22.7.99 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4729/98 referred to in the impugned order contained in annexure-6 as will appear from judgment and order of the same court dated 1.9.99 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 6793/98 which was disposed of apparently only after a week of order contained in annexure-6. 4. In such circumstances the proper course appears to examine the correctness and legality of impugned order contained in annexure-5 vide memo no. 535 dated 10.4.2004 by the Secretary, Primary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna on its own merit. This order is clearly a reasoned order pursuant to remand order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4798/98 and C.W.J.C. No. 6793 of 1998. The later writ petition was filed by petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 14255 of 2004 (Bhupendra Singh & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.). Unfortunately copy of that order has not been annexed by Bhupendra Singh in the present writ petition but the same has been produced by learned counsel for the State. 5. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the right created in favour of teachers like the petitioners by way of higher pay scale by resolution of Government bearing no. 10770 dated 30th December, 1981 has been wrongly taken away by a subsequent decision of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar contained in Circular dated 4.9.1982. 6. The petitioners have not annexed or quoted the relevant provisions of the resolution dated 30th December, 1981 to show how their claim is based upon provisions of that resolution. On the other hand, the reasoned order of the Secretary gives full details and in the last part of annexure-5 concludes as follows "In other words Intermediate untrained or Graduate untrained teachers appointed against the posts of matric trained teachers will be entitled to the scale of Rs. On the other hand, the reasoned order of the Secretary gives full details and in the last part of annexure-5 concludes as follows "In other words Intermediate untrained or Graduate untrained teachers appointed against the posts of matric trained teachers will be entitled to the scale of Rs. 535-865/- and graduate untrained teachers appointed against the posts of lntermediate teachers will be entitled to the scale of Rs. 680-965/- as has been mentioned in resolution dated 30th December, 1981. In fact, this is, what has been clarified by the circular dated 4.9.1982 of Finance Department". 7. There is no material on record to find any error or wrong in the aforesaid reasoning and conclusion of the Secretary, Primary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna. In the matter of grant of pay scale the views of the Finance Department require to be given adequate primacy and importance because different categories of employees are involved in it and it is well settled in law that court of law should be loath to interfere with the view of the Finance Department unless they are found to be in clear violation of statutory provisions of law or in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, this court finds no good ground to take a different view than the views of the Finance Department which have been mentioned in the impugned order passed by the Secretary of the Education Department. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed at the stage of admission.