CIVIL APPEAL 11675 of 2013 on 1 October 2003

1. Pravin Kumar Son Of Late Jagannath Prasad Resident Of Village + P.O. - Motha, P.S. - Karakat, District - Rohtas

2. Gyanendra Chaudhary Son Of Late Dinanath Ram Resident Of Village - Kusumhara, P.S. - Suryapur, District - Rohtas Kusumhara, P.S. - Suryapur, District - Rohtas

3. Manoj Kumar Singh Son Of Late Sudarshan Singh Resident Of Village - Mainpura Tola, P.S. - Karahgar, District - Rohtas - Mainpura Tola, P.S. - Karahgar, District - Rohtas

4. Nand Gopal Pandey Son Of Late Kashinath Pandey Resident Of Village - Baligaon, P.S. - Aayer, District - Bhojpur - Baligaon, P.S. - Aayer, District - Bhojpur

5. Rakesh Kumar Son Of Late Chhabinath Singh Resident Of Villag E- Chaukhanda Chitauli, P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna

4. The Regional Deputy Director , Education, Patna Division, Patna

5. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Rohtas

6. The District Education Officer, Rohtas

7. The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Rohtas

.... .... Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. D.K. Singh, AC to GP-5

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHAORAL ORDER

3 02-09-2015

Since this application has been restored today by a separate order in MJC No. 3431 of 2013, this writ application has also been heard on merit.

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i)To direct the respondents to make payment of the diference of arrears of salary from 1.10.2003 to January-2008 in pursuance to fixation of pay in Matric Trained Scale w.e.f. 1.10.2003.

(ii) Also to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for their promotion in Graduate Trained Scale as the Petitioners fulfilled all the requisite criteria for promotion in Graduate Trained Scale.”of the petitioners for their promotion in Graduate Trained Scale as the Petitioners fulfilled all the requisite criteria for promotion in Graduate Trained Scale.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground and one of the terms and condition of such appointment was that they would be sent for teachers training within a period of three years but, then, for one reason or the other, while the petitioners were not sent for teachers training, others being sent for training have been given the matric trained pay-scale whereas in the case of the petitioners, such benefit has not been given prior to February, 2008 when they had passed the teachers training examination in the second phase. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this would be in complete defiance of the provisions made in the order of appointment of the petitioners and they cannot be penalized for not being sent on training.

Let it be noted that appointment of the petitioners was made at a point of time when there was a statutory rule governing the appointment on the post of teacher. The minimum qualification for such appointment was matriculation and teacher training. The petitioners, however, by way of exception, on account of compassionate appointment, were not offered

Conclusion

appointment on the post of teacher in matric untrained pay-scale The terms of appointment of the petitioners was very clear that they would be continued to get payment of salary in the matric trained teacher pay-scale till they would pass the teacher training examination. Admittedly, the petitioners have passed such teachers training examination only in the month of February, 2008 whereafter they have been given the benefit of matric trained pay-scale. This aspect of the matter in fact was already decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Kanta Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2010(4) PLJR 732 wherein the whole scheme of grant of matric trained pay-scale was discussed at length for coming to a conclusion that an exception had to be carved out only in case of such of the teachers who were appointed through direct recruitment. That is not the case of the petitioners and for them there was no question of any such exception. The petitioners, being bound by the terms and conditions of their appointment letter, cannot claim salary of the matric trained pay-scale or arrear prior to any date of their passing of the teachers training examination. This Court, therefore, does not find any error in denying the petitioners the benefit of matric trained teacher for the period 1.10.2003 to January, 2008.

That being so, this application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Rishi/-

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

U