Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 932 (PAT)

Sheela Ray v. State of Bihar

2014-09-01

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER 1. There is an application seeking quashing of the order as contained in Memo No. 778 dated 23.06.2010 passed by the Respondent District Superintendent of Education, Bhabhua as well as the consequential order issued vide Memo No. 803 dated 01.07.2010. The effect of the impugned orders is that the promotion granted to the petitioner vide letter No. 180 dated 29.05.2008 issued by the office of District Superintendent of Education, Kaimur (Bhabhua) has been cancelled. 2. By the said order dated 29.05.2008, the petitioner, who was Assistant Teacher was given promotion on the ground of parity with Smt. Rajmuni Devi with retrospective effect. 3. The petitioner has superannuated with effect from 30.06.2010 i.e. 7 days after the date of issuance of impugned order dated 23.06.2010. Though the writ application was filed in the year 2010 and vide order dated 17.09.2010, the State Respondents were granted time for filing counter affidavit, till date no counter affidavit has been filed. I condemn inaction on the part of the Respondents for not filing counter affidavit despite order of this Court dated 17.09.2010, more so, as they have not responded despite repeated reminders made by the learned counsel for the State respondents. In such view of the matter, I am left with no option but to proceed on the basis of statements made in the writ application. 4. It is petitioner’s claim that she and one Rajmuni Devi were appointed as Assistant Teachers on the same day i.e. 19.01.1974. However, the said Rajmuni Devi was placed below in the gradation list of Teachers prepared for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers. Petitioner was placed at serial No. 111 whereas said Rajmuni Devi at serial No. 112 in the said Gradation list. Though Rajmuni Devi was junior in the gradation list she was given I.A. Trained Scale with effect from 20.11.1976, B.A. Trained Scale with effect from 01.04.1983 and scale of Headmaster with effect from 01.04.1985 but such benefits were not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner kept on approaching the authorities for redressal of his grievance. Finally by a letter No. 577 dated 02.04.2007, the Director (Primary) Education, Bihar asked the District Superintendent of Education to take necessary action after placing the petitioner’s case before District Education Establishment Committee. The petitioner kept on approaching the authorities for redressal of his grievance. Finally by a letter No. 577 dated 02.04.2007, the Director (Primary) Education, Bihar asked the District Superintendent of Education to take necessary action after placing the petitioner’s case before District Education Establishment Committee. The petitioner’s case was placed accordingly before the Committee on 21.04.2008 whereupon the Committee took a decision to grant all benefits to the petitioner which were granted to said Rajmuni Devi. Accordingly vide order dated 29.05.2008 issued by the Superintendent of Education, Bhabhua (Kaimur), the petitioner was granted I.A. trained scale with effect from 20.11.1976, B.A. Scale with effect from 01.04.1983 and Scale of Headmaster with effect from 01.04.1985. 5. Just nearly a week before the petitioner was going to attain the age of superannuation, the impugned order came to be passed withdrawing the benefits granted to the petitioner by Memo No. 180 dated 29.05.2008 i.e. I.A. trained scale with effect from 20.11.1976, B.A. trained scale with effect from 01.04.1983 and scale of Headmaster with effect from 01.04.1985. 6. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that before passing the impugned order dated 23.06.2010 no show cause notice was given to the petitioner affording her any opportunity of being heard which order has apparent adverse civil consequences. He further submits that reason assigned in the impugned order dated 23.06.2010 is also baseless for the reason that the petitioner on the date of his appointment as Assistant Teacher held the qualification of intermediate. He has submitted that there is nothing to show that the petitioner was in any way inferior to the said Rajmuni Devi. He contends that the observation of District Superintendent of Education, Kaimur (Bhabhua) to the effect that the petitioner cannot be treated senior to Rajmuni Devi despite petitioner’s name in the seniority list prepared by the State Government figuring above Rajmuni Devi is wholly erroneous and misconceived. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents State of Bihar on the other hand has opposed the relief sought for in the writ application and it has been submitted that the reason has been assigned in the impugned order for withdrawing the benefits which were granted to the petitioner by letter No. 180 dated 29.05.2008. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents State of Bihar on the other hand has opposed the relief sought for in the writ application and it has been submitted that the reason has been assigned in the impugned order for withdrawing the benefits which were granted to the petitioner by letter No. 180 dated 29.05.2008. He further contends that said intermediate trained Rajmuni Devi was getting I.A. trained scale with effect from 19.01.1974 whereas petitioner was not getting the scale and taking into account this fact, the Competent Authority rightly passed the order which is under challenge in the present writ application. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that before issuance of the impugned order dated 23.06.2010, no notice was given to the petitioner seeking her explanation over proposed action of withdrawal of the benefits granted earlier to her in the year 2008. Secondly, it cannot be deciphered on the basis of the impugned order dated 23.06.2010 as to how the petitioner could be treated to be junior to the said Rajmuni Devi or inferior to her so as to disentitled the petitioner the benefits which the said Rajmuni Devi was granted who was appointed on the same day as Assistant Teacher, when the petitioner was appointed. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 23.06.2010 as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. This application is allowed. The Petitioner will be entitled for all consequential reliefs including arrears of pay etc.