Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1122 (PAT)

Kishor Kumar v. State of Bihar

2019-08-09

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

body2019
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is against the arbitrary decision of the respondents in granting the benefit of trained scale. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were sent for training for the academic year 2013-15. The Course was completed in May, 2017 and thereafter the examination was held in November, 2018. The respondents have taken their own time in publishing the result and, in fact, the result was published in March, 2019 along with the result of next junior batch. 4. Mr. Rajeev Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of lapse of the respondents in holding the examination and publishing result. Taking the case at the last ebb, Mr. Roy submits that when the academic course was completed in May, 2017, the respondents consumed more than one year six months in holding examination and thereafter they took four months in publishing the result. For their delay in holding the examination and publishing result the petitioners cannot be made to suffer adversely in the matter of payment of the benefit of trained scale. 5. If there is no dispute that the petitioners were sent for training in academic sessions 2013-15 and the course was completed in May, 2017, there is no reason to deny the benefit of trained scale to these petitioners with effect from May, 2017 when the course was completed as the petitioners have completed their training but for the reason best known to the respondents the examination was not held in time and the result was published belatedly along with the junior batch. 6. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director, Primary Education to consider the case of the petitioners and grant the benefit from the date of completion of training to the petitioners as the lapses on the part of the respondents cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of trained pay scale. It is now well settled that one cannot take advantage of his own wrong in defeating the genuine claim. Chief Justice Chhagla of Bombay High Court in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City: AIR 1954 Bom. It is now well settled that one cannot take advantage of his own wrong in defeating the genuine claim. Chief Justice Chhagla of Bombay High Court in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City: AIR 1954 Bom. 232 has occasion to settle the principle on the similar line there is judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar: AIR 1989 SC 1133 . The respondents have to take decision granting benefit of trained scale to the petitioners with effect from the date of completion of their training i.e. May, 2017. Necessary decision in this regard with all consequential monetary benefits must be taken by the Director, Secondary Education within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.