LETTERS PATENT APPEAL 8445 of 2021 on 15 October 1997

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,Government of Bihar, Patna.Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Education Officer, Araria.

4. The Treasury Officer, Araria.

5. The Headmaster-cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Thana MiddleSchool, Farbesganj, District - Araria.School, Farbesganj, District - Araria.

6. The Headmaster, Primary School, Osari, Farbesganj, District- Araria.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. Md. Wasiqur Rahman S/o- Late Md. Samidur Rahman, R/o- At and P.O. -Gaiyari, Ward No. - 12, P.S. and District - Araria.Gaiyari, Ward No. - 12, P.S. and District - Araria.

2. The Accountant General, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================Appearance :For the Appellant/s: Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General Mrs. Binita Singh, SC 28 Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, AC to SC 28For the Respondent/s: Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Venkatesh Kirti Sanket, Advocate For Resp. No. : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanket, Advocate Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHAORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 23-09-2025

Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. There is delay of about 596 days in filing the presentappeal. Even though sufficient cause has not been shown andinterlocutory application for condonation of delay has beenopposed by the learned counsel for the respondents so as to reject the interlocutory application. We have perused the completerecords from the date of respondent No. 1 – Md. WasiqurRahman’s initial appointment till date of retirement in the year2011. Prima facie, there may be collusion among the officials ofthe respondents insofar as furnishing report to the extent thatwhatever certificate produced by the respondent No. 1 for thepurpose of selection and appointment to the post of Teacher in theyear 1988 was fabricated or false. At the relevant point of time, thepetitioner failed to assail decision of the District Superintendent ofEducation (DSE) and proceeded to submit a representation toDistrict Magistrate. On the petitioner’s representation, the thenDistrict Magistrate, Araria proceeded to hold afresh inquiry andgave findings that respondent No. 1 has not furnished any false orfabricated certificate. On such report, the District Magistrateproceeded to reinstate respondent No. 1 on 15.10.1997 and he hasattained age of superannuation and retired from service on22.11.2011.

3. It is surprising and shocking to know that officialrespondent has failed to take note of that the District Magistratewas not the competent authority to take action and initiateproceedings and conclude in favour of respondent andreinstatement of respondent - Teacher in the Education Department, however, it has attained finality on 15.10.1997. TheState Government had every right to interfere with the decision ofthe District Magistrate, Araria insofar as giving finding thatrespondent No. 1 had furnished genuine certificate or falsecertificate at a given point of time and thereafter, onrepresentation, finding given that certificates are genuine. In otherwords, State official respondents have slept over the subjectmatter. In the meanwhile respondent No. 1 has discharged theduties on the post of Teacher from 15.10.1997 to 22.11.2011.

4. Arising out of the aforementioned materialinformation, question for consideration is whether respondent No.1 – Md. Wasiqur Rahman is entitled to count service from the year1988 till 22.11.2011 for the purpose of extending retiral benefitsincluding fixation of pension or not ? Till 16.10.1997 matter hasattained finality to the extent that respondent No. 1 obtainedappointment to the post of Teacher by furnishing false andfabricated documents. The respondent No. 1 had right to questionthe District Magistrate’s decision insofar as giving finding thatrespondent No. 1 had furnished false certificate. In other words, heshould have approached next higher forum or knocking the doorsof this Court. On the other hand, he had submitted representationto the District Magistrate. In all fairness the District Magistrate should not have entertained the representation of respondent No. 1,it should have been transmitted to the appointing authority torespondent No. 1 i.e., appointing authority to Teacher post.

5. Prima facie, we find that there must be a collusionamong the office of the District Magistrate and respondent No. 1.In other words, the District Magistrate should have taken note ofearlier proceedings relating to that respondent No. 1 had filed falsecertificate and DSE report. In fact, DSE report should have beenforwarded to appointing authority to respondent No. 1 for furtherproceedings. Therefore, having regard to the conduct of both therespective parties, the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to countservice from the year 1988 to 14.10.1997 for the purpose of retiralbenefits and pensionary benefits. That apart, he has not dischargedthe duties of the post in regular terms and certain breaks are foundduring the intervening period till 15.10.2017. In the light of thesefacts and circumstances, delay of 596 stands condoned in so far asfiling of LPA and I.A. for condonation of delay is allowed.

6. With the consent of the learned counsels for therespective parties, main matter is taken up for final disposal.

7. Core issue involved in the present lis is whetherrespondent No. 1 is entitled to count service from the year 1988 to22.11.2011 for the purpose of retiral benefits and pensionary benefits or not ? Perusal of the previous paragraphs while decidingthe interlocutory application for condonation of delay, we havetaken note of certain things relating to conduct of the respondentNo. 1 and so also conduct of the official respondents. Taking noteof the aforementioned material, it is crystal clear that respondentNo. 1 has played fraud on the official respondent insofar assubmitting representation for the second time to re-examine thegenuineness of the certificate without appreciating that there isalready finding of the DSE that certificates are not genuine.Further, entertaining representation on the very same subject andfindings are in favour of respondent No. 1 and without resorting toother remedies in respect of first finding on behalf of respondentNo. 1 in the light of these facts and circumstances, respondent No.1 is entitled to count service only from 15.10.1997 to 22.11.2011or 30[th] November, 2011 towards retiral benefits and pension, if it isnot fixed and paid as on this day, the same shall be calculated anddisbursed in favour of the respondent No. 1. Further, arrears ofpension shall be extended from 30.11.2011 to this day.

8. The above exercise shall be completed within a periodof six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. To theabove extent, order of the learned Single Judge stands modified.

9. Accordingly, present LPA No. 558 of 2025 is disposedof. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(P. B. Bajanthri, CJ)

GAURAV S./-AFR/NAFRCAV DATEUploading Date25.09.2025Transmission Date (Alok Kumar Sinha, J)