Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sudhir Singh delivered a 11-page long judgment on January 12, 2026 in Sudha Trivedy vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors.(2026), wherein it upheld a 12-page long judgement dated by Justice Purnendu Singh. In the 15th judgement authored by Chief Justice Sahoo concluded:"5. In an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench may undoubtedly be entitled to reappraise both questions of fact and law, however, the entertainment of a Letters Patent Appeal is discretionary. Normally, the Division Bench would not, unless there are cogent reasons, differ from the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Even a first appellate court, being the final court of appeal on facts, is required to exercise a certain degree of restraint. 6. In an intra-court appeal, interference with findings of fact is warranted only if the appellate Bench reaches the conclusion that the findings of the learned Single Judge are perverse. The same shall not be disturbed merely because another view, or even a better view, is possible. There should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. In essence, a Letters Patent Appeal provides an internal check and balance, ensuring judicial oversight and protecting citizens rights by allowing a thorough review of a Single Judge’s decision. 8. After going through the impugned order, which is primarily based on the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench, we find no palpable illegality or perversity therein. 9. Accordingly, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought by the appellant and the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed."
The counsel of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a Niyojit Teacher and was appointed on April 10, 2019 on the basis of M.A. and B.Ed degree, as Hindi teacher, to teach Class 10+2 students. The
appointment of the petitioner was done in compliance of the order passed by the District Appellate Authority, Vaishali. The grievance of the petitioner was that Clause 2 of the Resolution dated August 11, 2015 was applicable in her case and the petitioner being M.A. trained was entitled to be paid the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- applicable to the M.A. trained in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5200-20200/-, which was applicable to the Higher Secondary Teachers (10+2 teachers). The petitioner was aggrieved by the terms and conditions of Clause 2.8 contained in the Resolution that she had been discriminated because of Kalavadhi of two years by not giving grade pay and the yearly increment from the date of her appointment being eligible in accordance with the Bihar Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner was aggrieved for non-payment of Grade Pay which allegedly has been denied to her. It was submitted that both trained and untrained teachers have been put on the same platform which is discriminatory and requires interference of the High Court.
Justice Purnendu Singh recorded the clarification provided by Advocate General that the petitioner was not discriminated in any manner rather the Resolution is beneficial in nature irrespective of their appointment as per Rules, 2006. He explained that the mechanism of giving the benefit of grade pay to the teachers from the date of their appointment subject to kalavadhi of two years to all the Niyojit Teachers is not discriminatory in any manner. The petitioner who was appointed in the year 2019 was already granted the benefit of grade pay in Level 4, Index – 1 in terms of the Clause 2.8 of the Resolution No. 1530 dated August 11, 2015, which prescribes two years of Kalavadhi from the date of appointment i.e. April 10, 2019. The case of the petitioner was covered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court vide Judgment dated August 10, 2023 passed in Rajanish Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 2417 of 2022), wherein the Division Bench held the kalavadhi for a period of two years from the date of initial appointment to be valid. Therefore, no interference can be made by the High Court in this regard.
Justice Singh had concluded:"The petitioner who is a 10+2 teacher, if finds that, she is aggrieved in any other manner may avail remedy before the appropriate authority for considering her grievance in accordance with law."
No comments:
Post a Comment