Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1028 (PAT)

Chakreshwar Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2009-08-05

J.N.SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to grant him B. A. Trained scale from the date of take-over of his services and make payment of difference of salary on account of such grant of scale as also for a direction to the respondents to revise his pensionary benefits accordingly and grant him arrears of the same also. 2. Case of the petitioner is that although he was Graduate Trained teacher working in the school concerned since 1968, his services were initially taken over with effect from 24.5.1988 vide Annexure-1 in the Matric Untrained scale. Subsequently, by another notification 16.9.1988 (Annexure-2), date of take over of the services of the petitioner and other teachers of the school was fixed as 7.2.1986. He submits that in the said notification it was also observed that till the posting of the headmaster and second teacher in the school on the basis of District level seniority list, the present headmaster of the school shall continue and in case he has been paid B.A. Trained scale by the Managing Committee of the school, he shall be entitled for the same which matter shall be considered by the concerned District Superintendent of Education in the light of the departmental rules. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since then matter remained pending with the respondents but he continued as headmaster in the school and superannuated with effect from 31.1.1997. After superannuation, he filed representations before the authorities which were not heeded to, compelling the petitioner to move this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2725 of 1998. The said writ application was, however, dismissed by order dated 17.5.1999 holding that grant of higher scale/grade is not dependent on qualification only and the same has to be granted taking into account inter se seniority in the cadre, availability of vacancy and other things. However, while disposing of the writ application, this Court observed that it is expected that the case of the petitioner for higher scale/grade would be considered in accordance with the said direction , which referred to paragraph 14 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Balram Choudhary vs. State of Bihar 1994(1) PLJR 588. However, while disposing of the writ application, this Court observed that it is expected that the case of the petitioner for higher scale/grade would be considered in accordance with the said direction , which referred to paragraph 14 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Balram Choudhary vs. State of Bihar 1994(1) PLJR 588. Learned counsel submits that inspite of the said observation of this Court, case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents as yet for grant of B.A. Trained scale and the scale of headmaster although vacancy continued to exist throughout and petitioner continued on the post. 4. Although no counter affidavit has been filed in the case, learned counsel for the State submits that since the petitioner had the training, he would be entitled to Matric Trained scale. So far other scales are concerned, overall seniority of the petitioner in the cadre, his qualification and vacancies have to be considered. He submits that now question of grant of B.A. Trained scale to a teacher has to abide by the judgment of Full Bench of this Court and therefore, case of the petitioner can be examined only in the light of the law laid down by this Court in such matters. He also submits that during his service period, petitioner had not filed any representation and had not agitated his claim and the matter is stale one. 5. It is true that the petitioner has raked up the matter after much delay and this writ application was fit to be dismissed on that ground itself, but for two reasons; i.e. (i) from Annexure-2 it appears that the matter of the petitioner for grant of B.A. Trained scale and headmasters scale remained pending with the District Superintendent of Education and therefore it can be assumed that petitioner was waiting for it bona fide, and (ii) petitioner had moved this Court earlier and this Court had given some observation in his favour expecting that the case of the petitioner for higher grade/scale would be considered in accordance with the said direction. The said order of this court giving such observation in favour of the petitioner amounts to condoning the delay caused by the petitioner in approaching this Court and thus, it is not possible for this Court to reject the writ application of the petitioner on account of delay and laches. 6. The said order of this court giving such observation in favour of the petitioner amounts to condoning the delay caused by the petitioner in approaching this Court and thus, it is not possible for this Court to reject the writ application of the petitioner on account of delay and laches. 6. Since the observation of this Court given in the earlier writ application still remains operative and the observations in Annexure-2 is also in favour of the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of any higher scale or grade in accordance with law as he may be found entitled in law and as per judicial decision of this Court in this respect. 7. It is expected that the said decision, either way, will be taken by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. It goes without saying that whatever arrears become due to the petitioner, in case he is granted higher scale/grade from retrospective date, the same shall also be paid to the petitioner within that period and his retiral benefits shall also be revised accordingly. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of.