Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 997 (PAT)

Baidya Nath Yadav v. State

2007-05-24

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are teachers in schools established and run by the Department of Welfare, Govt. of Bihar. They are not teachers of Nationalised Government Schools, who are under the Department of Primary, Secondary and Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar. While the petitioners were recruited, the advertisement recruiting them did not lay down any condition of requisite teachers training nor any different pay scale was provided for trained and untrained teachers. It is not in dispute that the teachers of Government Nationalised Schools under the Department of Primary, Secondary and Higher Education form a different cadre totally from those who are in schools established and run by the Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, a teacher from one cannot be transferred to another. They have separate seniority list. Their service conditions are separate. Their disciplinary authorities are separate. It is stated that so far as teachers of Government Nationalised Schools are concerned, under the Department of Primary, Secondary and Higher Education, a lower pay scale has been provided for untrained teachers, which is not the case in case of teachers under the Welfare Department. When matter of revision of pay scale came up in the year 1999, the pay scales were revised and so far as teachers in the Welfare Department are concerned, their revision was separately shown from other teachers under the Department of Primary, Secondary and Higher Education. No pay scale for untrained teachers was at all shown for teachers under the Welfare Department. This distinction was there so far as teachers of Government Nationalised Schools under the Primary, Secondary and Higher Education Department is concerned. 3. It is submitted that from this, every, one was conscious of the distinction between the two cadres though under the same Government. 4. It is submitted that rules in relation to one cadre would not automatically apply to another cadre unless they are statutorily so adopted. It appears that this problem of trained and untrained teachers brought the attention of the Finance Department. Finance Department clarified that if a teacher was untrained teacher and a lower pay scale was provided to an untrained teacher then he would get the lower pay scale but if no lower pay scale was provided he would get the same pay scale that of a trained teacher but he could be denied promotion pending obtaining teachers training. 5. Finance Department clarified that if a teacher was untrained teacher and a lower pay scale was provided to an untrained teacher then he would get the lower pay scale but if no lower pay scale was provided he would get the same pay scale that of a trained teacher but he could be denied promotion pending obtaining teachers training. 5. In other words, the Finance Department was clear that if two different pay scales were provided for trained and untrained teachers the same would be applied. In absence of the same both would be paid with restriction on promotion. 6. My attention has been drawn to the Pay Revision Committees report, which clearly shows that so far as teachers in the Welfare Department are concerned no two different pay scales are provided as between trained and untrained teachers. Even in the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioners were appointed there was no such distinction between trained and untrained teachers. Such a distinction is only to be found in respect of teachers under the Department of Primary, Secondary and Higher Education and not under the Department of Welfare. It is, thus, submitted that granting a lower pay scale to the petitioners, who were otherwise being paid higher pay scale is impermissible, moreso, because the pay scale they are being granted not provided for teachers in the Welfare Department but admitting it is the pay scale of untrained teachers of the Department of Primary, Secondary and Higher Education which is a distinct cadre by itself. 7. Prima facie, the submission of the petitioners appears to be correct. 8. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly brought to the notice of this court a judgment of this court dealing with this matter and in particular judgment dated 29.4.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 739/00 (Dr. Damodar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein on identical issue the Hon ble Single Judge took a view contrary to the view canvassed by the petitioners. In my view, that being a judgment of Hon ble Single Judge of this court I am not bound by the said though I have my reservation with regard to the same. In my view, the principle which is to be applied has been dealt with in the case of Bihar State Lecturers Association V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. In my view, that being a judgment of Hon ble Single Judge of this court I am not bound by the said though I have my reservation with regard to the same. In my view, the principle which is to be applied has been dealt with in the case of Bihar State Lecturers Association V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. since, 2004 2 PLJR 251 , a Division Bench of this Court, which judgment has not been noticed by the Hon ble Single Judge. In my view, the decision requires reconsideration by a larger bench. 9. Put up this case before the Hon ble C.J. for constituting a larger bench for reconsideration of the matter.