Sheo Ram Chaudhary vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.N. Jha, J.—The Petitioner seeks direction on the Respondents to pay him salary as Assistant teacher in the metric untrained scale w.e.f. 12.11.80.

The Petitioner had come to this Court earlier vide C.W.J.C. No. 7876/92. A Bench of this Court directed the Petitioner to file representation before the Director, Primary Education by order dated 29.1.93. By order dated 27/29.4.94 the Director recommended his case to the Government. Final order in this regard, however, was issued by the Government only on 9.3.95 under the hand of Joint Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department vide memo No. 244. As per the said order, however, the approval was made to be effective from the date of the order.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as the Petitioner was appointed prior to 1(sic)71, as has been found by the concerned authorities and the appointment has been approved by the then Director, Primary Education on 12.11.80, there is no justification not to pay salary from that date.

In the counter affidavit the only thing of substance stated is that although the Petitioner passed matriculation examination in 1967 (suppl.), he obtained his S.L.C. on 23.11.81, and it then appears that the Managing Committee appointed him without the S.L.C. It has been submitted that the manner in which the Managing Committee made appointment, creates suspicion.

It is obvious that Respondents are trying to make out a new case. As indicated above, the claim of the Petitioner has been considered on more than one occasion by officer of the department and they did not find any fault. The Director, Primary Education already approved the Petitioner''s appointment on 12.11.80. It is not understandable why Petitioner should not be paid salary from that date. It is to be kept in mind that the successor Director Sri Phool Singh also recommended the Petitioner''s case vide his memo No. 908 dated 29.4.94 as stated above. If the Respondents took their own time to issue the final order, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

In paragraph-14 of the writ petition specific statement has been made that the Petitioner has been throughout working in the school from the date of his appointment. The said statement has not been denied by the Respondents in the counter affidavit. It has merely been stated that those statements are matters of record subject to verification. In that view of the matter, I direct the Respondents to pay salary to the Petitioner in the metric untrained scale as per the aforesaid order dated 9.3.95 but w.e.f. 12.11.80 and not from the date of issuance of that order.

This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.