While adjudicating the petitions of residents from Muzaffarpur district, in Ashok Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed: "the present petition with respect to the validity of Clause 5(h) of the resolution of the Education Department, published in the Gazette, has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.03.2019 passed in CWJC No. 985 of 2015. The issue does not require any further deliberation."
Notably, the 10-page long judgement of March 2019 was delivered by Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Anjana Mishra. In the previous judgement the Court had recorded the submission of Advocate General saying, "as per Clause 7 and Clause 8 of the resolution dated 15th February, 2011, the same was also meant to be applied in respect of all appointments in all Madarsas and Sanskrit Schools irrespective of their status of recognition and receiving grant-in-aid list prior to 15th February, 2011." His argument was that since the petitioners were appointed after February 15, 2011, "therefore, they are also covered by the aforesaid two clauses." After the resolution dated February 15, 2011, they were entitled to a fixed pay which has been now indicated in the impugned memo dated August 31, 2013 where Clause 6 categorically provides that such of these teachers who have been appointed after February 15, 2011 shall be entitled to fixed pay only.
The challenge had been raised to the resolution dated August 31, 2013 to the aforesaid extent contending that the same is arbitrary and discriminatory and there is no rationale so as to reduce the pay-scale of the petitioners that they were already enjoying pursuant to their appointment by retrospectively applying the resolution dated August 31, 2013. The background in which this challenge has been raised centres around two resolutions, one dated February 15, 2011 and the impugned resolution dated August 31, 2013.
The judgement was authored by Chief Justice Sahi. It reads:"the impugned action and Resolution to the aforesaid effect converting the pay-scale of the petitioners cannot be sustained and is, hereby, quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners. We....declare that the petitioners will continue to get the same salary that they were getting prior to the impugned resolution together with all arrears on that account that shall be released forthwith within a period of three months from today." The petitioners had claimed to be the validly appointed teachers of Madarsa Islamia Arbia, Naeemia, Sonebarsa, Maharajganj, Siwan. They had claimed that the petitioner No.1 was appointed under a resolution dated July 16, 2012, whereas the petitioner No. 2 was appointed under a resolution dated August 16, 2012. These proposals were preceded by an advertisement in the year 2011 and after the selection process, the papers with regard to the selection of these two teachers were sent for approval to the competent authority with regard to which approval was granted. This factum of appointment of the petitioners and their approval remained undisputed. The residents of Siwan had approached the Court in CWJC No.985 of 2015 (Imran Alam and others vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar) . The other ten respondents were: the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, the Special Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Joint Secretary, Education Department, District Education Officer, District Program Officer (Establishment), Siwan, District Program Officer (Secondary Education), Siwan, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna through the Secretary, Secretary, the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna, Secretary, Madarsa Islamia Arbia, Naeemia, Sonebarsa, Maharajganj, Siwan and Head Maulbi, Madarsa Islamia Arbia, Naeemia, Sonebarsa, Siwan.
The Court observed in it's February 2025 judgement that if the petitioners are in any way aggrieved by the action of the respondents, it would be open for them to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. However, this petition would not survive for discussing the validity of the clause in the resolution of the Government. The petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievance. In case any representation is filed by the petitioners before the concerned authority, needless to say that it shall be disposed of within a reasonable period of time, giving reasons.
In the case in question, the other four petitioners were: Manoj Kumar Mishra, Naveen Kumar, Sweta Kumari, Prem Sheela Devi, the residents of Muzaffarpur district. Besides the State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, the other seven respondents were: Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Joint Secretary, Education Department, Special Secretary, Education Department, District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur, District Programme Officer (Establishment), Muzaffarpur, Bhar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna through the Secretary and Chairman, The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. The judgement was delivered on February 25, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment