Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2331 (PAT)

Bashist Narayan Jha v. State of Bihar

2011-11-23

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, R.M.DOSHIT

body2011
ORDER Re. I.A. No. 6742 of 2011. The delay of 10 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. LPA No. 1375 of 2011 & IA No. 6743 of 2011. 2. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the respondent no. 4, the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan, against the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 9195 of 2010. 3. The challenge is confined to the cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the appellant for not following the direction of this Court issued on 5th August 2009 in CWJC No. 8727 of 2009. 4. By order dated 24th August, 1995, the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan made order in respect of 79 teachers raising their pay scales to that of Intermediate Trained scale from retrospective dates indicated in the order. Nevertheless, the difference of salary was not paid for the past period. 5. Feeling aggrieved, two of the beneficiaries filed CWJC No. 8727 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge (Coram: Mridula Mishra, J) allowed the said petition and directed that the petitioners were entitled to the difference of salary computed from the dates they were given Intermediate (Science) Trained scale. By abundant caution, the learned single Judge also directed that the benefit of the difference of pay shall extend to all the incumbents included in the order dated 24th August 1995 without compelling such teachers to approach the Court. 6. In spite of the aforesaid direction, the appellant, in his wisdom, did not extend the benefit of the judgment to the other teachers compelling one of them to approach this Court in the above CWJC No. 9195 of 2010. In the circumstances, the learned single Judge has not only allowed the writ petition but has also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the appellant. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that in case of promotion with retrospective date, the Financial Rules provide that the higher salary would be payable to the incumbent from the actual date of promotion. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baddula Lakshmaiah & Ors. vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temples & Ors. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baddula Lakshmaiah & Ors. vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temples & Ors. [1996 (2) PLJR (SC) 27]. He has also relied upon Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Neither the aforesaid judgment nor Section 35B CPC renders support to the appellant. 9. Be that as it may, at first, we must note that the order dated 24th August 1995 was not that of promotion but the order of revision of pay scale from retrospective date. Once the pay scale was revised from a retrospective date, the concerned person was entitled to the difference in salary. Rule of promotion with retrospective effect would not apply in case of revision of pay scale. Second; the judgment and order dated 5th August, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge had received finality and was binding to the State authorities. The State authorities, however, did not comply with the direction and compelled at least one of the teachers to approach the High Court. Evidently, the appellant, the concerned District Superintendent of Education, has tried to be wiser than the Court and withheld the amount of difference in salary payable to as many as 77 teachers. The action of the appellant was evidently high-handed and contrary to the direction issued by this Court. The conduct of the appellant betrays lack of respect the appellant has for the Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant did invite the order of cost. 10. In his discretion, the learned single Judge has imposed the cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The discretion exercised by the learned single judge does not warrant interference. Appeal is devoid of merit. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.