Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 782 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Ashok Kumar Sinha

2008-06-26

J.N.SINGH, SARIN GHOSH

body2008
JUDGMENT : Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, JJ. The writ petitioner-respondent was employed by the Managing Committee of an Aided Institution on 4th December, 1978 as an Assistant Teacher. On 14th April, 1982 the State Government accepted such appointment and agreed to provide grant in aid to the School on account of salaries to be payable to the petitioner-respondent. At that time the petitioner-respondent was a graduate but she was not trained. That being the situation, the State Government on 14th August, 1984 directed the writ petitioner-respondent to be trained and for that matter she was relieved. There is no dispute that the petitioner-respondent completed her training and rejoined the School and started getting her remuneration but such remuneration was paid to the petitioner-respondent up to the month of March, 1986. Since April, 1986 she was not paid her remuneration. Various representations made by the petitioner-respondent were in deaf ear of the State and its Officers. That compelled the petitioner-respondent to file a writ petition which was opposed by the State by filing a counter affidavit. In that it was contended that the petitioner-respondent was not eligible to be appointed in 1978 inasmuch as she was not trained then. This contention has been rejected by the JUDGMENT : and ORDER :under appeal principally on the ground that in 1982 it was well within the knowledge of the State that the petitioner-respondent is not a trained teacher but still then her appointment by the School was not only approved but the School was provided grant in aid for meeting the liability of the School towards remuneration to be payable to the petitioner-respondent. Then again, being alive of the fact that the petitioner-respondent is not trained, in 1984 the State Government itself directed the petitioner-respondent to be trained and the petitioner-respondent thereupon being trained was not only permitted to work, but her salaries were also paid to her through the School by the State until March, 1986 and thereupon there was no just reason to stop payment of salary of the petitioner-respondent since April, 1986 on the ground that the petitioner-respondent was not a trained teacher at the time of her appointment by the School in 1978. 2. 2. We do not find any flaw in the reasoning of the learned Judge in rendering the JUDGMENT : under appeal and we have not been persuaded by the learned counsel for the State to take a different view and, accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.