Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 165 (PAT)

Chandrama Pd. Singh @ Chandrama v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-24

J.N.BHATT

body2007
Judgment J.N.BHATT, J. 1. In this group of 42 Writ applications under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, common issue has been involved. It is, therefore, a joint request came to be made to hear the matter simultaneously and, thus, the matters are heard simultaneously and, now, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Learned Counsels appearing for the parties have reached to a consensus and, as such, there is no dispute with regard to the claim of the Petitioners, except in some of the cases, where liability to pay has been disputed. 3. The common question which has emerged for consideration in this group of cases, has been non-payment, of difference in salary on account of rise in the salary for the period between 1sl January, 1971 to 31st March, 1973, pursuant to a Government resolution dated 9th February, 1973, due and payable to the teachers who were working in non-Government Schools which were, subsequently, taken over by the Government and they became the Government schools. 4. At the very outset it is to be stated that since in some of the cases, teacher- claimants died before their claim could be settled, such Writ Petitions have been filed at the instance of their legal heirs. 5. It is undisputed that the Government had taken a conscientious decision to give rise in the salary of the Petitioner-teachers for the aforesaid period but at the same time, it was held out that the difference on that amount would not be paid to the Petitioners, but it would be deposited in the Provident Fund account of the concerned Petitioners, 6. It has been voiced in this group of Wit Petitions that the accountability to pay and deposit the said amount in the Provident Fund account of the concerned Petitioners as per the entitlement by the aforesaid resolution of the Government after taking over of the elementary schools along with the teachers is no longer disputed, now in view of the consensual statement made before this Court. 7. Learned Counsels appearing for the State have stated that in some of the matters viz. 7. Learned Counsels appearing for the State have stated that in some of the matters viz. CWJC No. 13856 of 2005, CWJC No. 1623 of 2006, CWJC No. 2202 of 2006, CWJC No. 6387of 2006, CWJC No. 15087 of 2006, CWJC No. 5820 of 2005, CWJC No.6220 of 2005, and CWJC No. 6379 of 2005, though the amount relatable to the arrears of difference of pay, is stated to have been not paid but, in fact, in the aforesaid matter, the amount has already been paid and in regard to CWJC No. 14655 of 2004, there is dispute with regard to entitlement of the Petitioner. However, it would be verified and if the amount is found to have been paid, there would not be any liability. It is also admitted by the learned Counsels for the Government that if during, the period the amount has been outstanding in any of the cases, the same will be paid w|th interest at the rate due and payable to the General Provident Fund subscribers and wherever the same is not paid, since the Petitioners have already retired, they will be paid within a period of three months with interest at the aforesaid rate in accordance with law. 8. Keeping in mind the aforesaid consensual statement, while viewed in the backdrop of factual matrix of the present cases and undisputed liability of the amount of entitlement for the teachers claiming difference in salary during the relevant period as per the aforesaid Government resolution, it is expedient to give the following directions in the larger interest of justice: (i) The State of Bihar is liable to pay the difference in the salary on account of increase for the period between 1st January, 1971 to 31st March, 1973, in terms of the Government resolution No. 763 dated 9th February, 1973 and the same shall be paid to all the Petitioner-teachers entitled to claim with interest at the rate of interest which has been prevalent from time to time for payment to the General Provident Fund subscribers in accordance with law. However, on verification of the liability if in any of the cases, the amount is found to have been paid or there is no entitlement with regard to the claim of payment to the Petitioner-teachers then there would not arise any liability to pay any amount in such case/cases; (ii) Since there has been submission that in most of the cases the liability has been discharged, keeping in mind this aspect, it is directed that the list of such persons with Petitions, produced out of the present group, shall be filed within a period of four weeks before the Registry of this High Court and it will be open for the Counsels for the Petitioners to avail copy of, as per rules, such list to be produced by the Respondents. (iii) In case, if any due and payable, as well as, entitled amount has not been paid, the same shall be paid from the date of liability till the date of payment including the amount in case found lying in suspense account of any of the subscribers with interest at the aforesaid rate within a period of three months; 9. In view of the aforesaid consensual submission, directions and observations, all these Writ Petitions shall stand disposed of No costs. Let a copy of this judgment be given to the learned Counsels for the State to see that the Order is fully complied with. 10. In case of any difficulty, clarification or modification, in an appropriate case, it will be open for the parties to move this Court and, therefore, liberty is reserved.