Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 65 (PAT)

Rizwan Ahmad v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-10

J.N.BHATT

body2007
Judgment J.N.Bhatt, J. 1. In this group of 39 writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the identical issue has been involved. Therefore, upon joint request of learned Counsels appearing for the parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Learned Counsels appearing for the parties are heard. There is a consensus and as such there is no dispute. The common question which has been raised in this group of petitions has been the non-payment of difference in salary on account of rise in the salary for the period between Ist January, 1971 to 31st March, 1973 pursuant to a Government resolution, dated 9.2.1973, due and payable to the teachers who were working in non-Government schools which were taken over by the Government as Government schools. 3. The Government had decided to increase the salary of the petitioners 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. It has been voiced in this group of petitions that, unfortunately, the accountability to pay and deposit the said amount in the Provident Fund account of the concerned petitioners as per the entitlement of 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. 4. Learned Junior Counsel to Government Advocate No. 1 while appearing for the respondents has with full candour submitted that the liability for payment of difference of increase in salary during the aforesaid period has been discharged in most of the cases along with the payment of interest at the rate due and payable to the general provident fund subscribers and wherever entitled due is not paid since they have retired they will be paid within a period of three months with interest at the aforesaid rate in accordance with law. 5. 5. In view of 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 for claiming difference in salary during the relevant period as per the aforesaid Government Resolution, it would be expedient to give the following directions in the larger interest of justice: (1) The State of Bihar is liable to pay the difference in the salary on account of increase for the period between Ist January, 1971 to 31st March, 1973 in terms of the Government resolution No. 763 dated 9.2.1973 and the same shall be paid to all the petitioners-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. (2) 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 as per rules of such list to be produced by the respondent. (3) 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. In view of the aforesaid consensual submission, directions and observations, all the petitions shall stand allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 6 Let a copy of this judgment be given to Government Advocate No. 1 Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal to see that the order is fully complied with by the State. 7. 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.