CIVIL APPEAL 14022 of 2024 on 9 August 1999

1. Anil Kumar Mishra Son of Late Narmadeshwar Mishra, Resident of Village-Bhagwanpur Bazar Gola, P.S- Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran (Chapra).Bhagwanpur Bazar Gola, P.S- Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran (Chapra).

2. Yogendra Nath Sharma, Son of Late Jaynarayan Thakur, Resident ofMohalla- Nurdiganj Khangarpar, P.S- Malsalami, District- Patna.Mohalla- Nurdiganj Khangarpar, P.S- Malsalami, District- Patna.

3. Shatrughna Mandal, Son of Late Yamuna Mandal, Resident of- RamrajApartment, Brahamsthani Gali, Raja Bazar, P.S. Shastrinagar, Patna.Apartment, Brahamsthani Gali, Raja Bazar, P.S. Shastrinagar, Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Primary Secondary and MassEducation, Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.Education, Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.

2. The Director, Directorate of Mass Education (Formerly Directorate of Adultand Non-formal Education) Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.and Non-formal Education) Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.

3. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Education Department, SaranDivision, Chapra.Division, Chapra.

4. District Education Officer, Saran (Chapra).

5. District Programme Officer (Education), Saran (Chapra).

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Braj Kishore Singh, Advocate Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor the Resp-State: Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18======================================================CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMARORAL ORDER

13-10-2025

Heard Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, learned GP-18 for theState.

2. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking following relief(s):

“i) To set aside the ordercontained in Memo no 704 dated12.06.2024 issued under the signature of respondent Regional Deputy Director ofEducation, Saran Division, Chapra,whereby the representation of thepetitioners, submitted in compliance ofthe direction of this Hon’ble Court dated22.03.2024 issued in writ applicationCWJC No. 4201 of 2024, for allowingthem 1[st], 2[nd] and 3[rd] ACP/MACP witheffect from 09.08.1999 and 01.01.2009respectively, by counting their entirelength of service rendered in theirorganisation, i.e., Directorate of Adultand Non-formal Education of theDepartment of Education (now known asMass Education), has been rejected,without taking into account Rule 22 of theMACP Rules 2010.

ii) Further prayer in thepresent writ application is for a directionto the respondents to make suitableamendments in the office order containedin Memo No- 395 dated 16.06.2017 andoffice order contained in Memo No- 210dated 21.02.2019, both issued under thesignature of respondent Regional DeputyDirector of Education, Saran Division,Chapra by which the petitioner nos. 2 and3 have been allowed 1[st] MACP with effectfrom 06.07.2016 and 02.09.2014respectively by counting their serviceperiod of 10 years with effect from thedate of their absorption by way of fresh appointment, after their retrenchmentfrom the Directorate of Adult and Non-formal education of the Educationdepartment.

Similarly of the office ordercontained in Memo no. 123 dated06.03.2018 issued under the signature ofsame respondent Regional DeputyDirector of Education, Saran DivisionChapra requires suitable amendment bywhich, the petitioner no-1 has beenallowed 1[st] MACP with effect from25.11.2015, i.e., the date petitioner no-1was given benefit of permanentabsorption after his retrenchment fromthe Directorate of Adult of Adult andNon-normal Education.

iii) Thereby the petitionersfurther pray for a direction to therespondents to re-fix their pension in thenext higher pay scales payable to them ongrant of such 1[st] ACP, 2[nd] MACP and 3[rd]MACP with due dates. Similarly, theother retiral dues of the petitioners suchas gratuity, leave encashment etc. be alsore-calculated as per the higher payscaleadmissible to the petitioners on grant ofsuch ACP/MACP from due dates.”

3. Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, learned advocate for the petitioners have adverting to the facts narrated in the writ petition has submitted that the identical matter has come forconsideration before this Court in Mahendra Jha vs. The Stateof Bihar & Ors. passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1937 of 2019, whichcame to be disposed of by this Court on 24.10.2014, infollowing terms:

“10. Before parting with thecase, it would be relevant to note thatthough before the learned Division Benchin L.P.A. No. 438 of 2017, the personsaggrieved were the employees of DairyDevelopment Corporation, duly managedand controlled by the State of Bihar,subsequently on account of financialcrisis, the Corporation was taken over bythe Department of Animal Husbandry inthe Government of Bihar. The services ofthe employees were duly absorbed;nonetheless their services rendered in theCorporation were not counted for grantof benefit under the ACP and MACPschemes. In the premise of this facts, thelearned Division Bench, highlighting theimport of Rules 10 and 22 of the Rules,2010 affirmed the order of the learnedSingle Judge by holding that in case ofabsorption, the principle applicable in thecase of appointment or fresh appointmentwill not apply. In the case in hand, thepetitioner was admittedly a retrenchedemployee of Directorate of Adult Education, whose services were later onabsorbed in the State of Bihar with aclear stipulation that the period renderedprior to retrenchment shall be counted forpension. Thus, in the opinion of thisCourt, the ratio decided by the learnedDivision Bench of this Court wouldgovern the case of the petitioner.

11. Considering the rivalsubmissions made on behalf of the partiesand taking note of the fact that the issueraised before this Court has already beenset at rest by the learned coordinateBench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11936 of 2011 as well as the learnedDivision Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.438 of 2017, this Court finds substance inthe submissions of the petitioner andaccordingly directs the respondents no. 3,4 and 5 to consider the claim of thepetitioner for grant of 1st, 2nd and 3rdACP/MACP with effect from the due dateby counting the entire period of regularservice rendered by him in theDirectorate of Adult and Non-formalEducation in terms of the provisionscontained in Rule, 22 of the Rules, 2010read with the observations and mandateof this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No.11936 of 2011 and L.P.A. No. 438 of2017.

12. The respondent authorities

shall also be obliged to take note of thefact that other similarly situated personshave been accorded the similar benefit(s),the copies of which have been marked asAnnexures-P-15 and 16 to thesupplementary affidavit.

13. The aforesaid exercisemust be completed, preferably within aperiod of twelve weeks from the date ofreceipt/production of a copy of this order.

14. The writ petition standsdisposed off with the aforesaid direction.”

4. The reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered by this Court in case of Ujjwal Kant vs. the State ofBihar and Ors. passed in C.W.J.C. No. 182 of 2022. It is thecontention of the petitioners that no more adjudication isrequired since the issue has been given a quietus in variouslitigation. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the petitionershave been deprived from the relief(s) as prayed for in the writpetition and by the impugned order, the representation of thepetitioners for extending the benefit of 1[st], 2[nd] and 3[rd]ACP/MACP with effect from 09.08.1999 and 01.01.2009respectively by counting their entire length of service renderedin their organization came to be rejected, without taking intoaccount Rule 22 of the MACP Rules, 2010.

5. Learned advocate for the State referring to the counter affidavit has submitted that the claim of the petitionerhas been refuted by the concerned respondents since theservices of the petitioners were terminated in year 2001 by theSecretary, Primary and Adult Education, Government of Biharand finally the petitioners were absorbed in view of theGovernment resolution no. 582 dated 20.05.2005, in which it isclearly indicated that their appointments should be treated as afresh appointment and they shall not get the benefit of seniorityon the basis of past services, therefore, the length of services ofthe petitioners shall be treated with effect from the date ofabsorption.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced and taking note of the decisions, over which reliance has beenplaced, the impugned order containing Memo No. 704 dated12.06.2024 appears to be wholly unsustainable and accordinglythe same is hereby set aside.

7. The matter is relegated to the Director, Directorateof Mass Education, Vikash Bhawan, Patna to consider the claimof the petitioners afresh in light of the order of this Courtrendered in C.W.J.C. No. 1937 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 182 of2022 preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the dateof receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Nilmani/-

U

8. It suffices to observe that if the case of thepetitioners is found to be identical to those of the petitioners ofaforenoted writ petitions, identical benefits must be accorded tothem within the period stipulated.

9. The writ petition stands disposed of in the similar term.

(Harish Kumar, J)