In Santosh Kumar & Ors. vs. The of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Harish Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 7-page long judgement dated September 7, 2026 concluded:"6. Having considered the facts narrated in the writ petition as well as the position in law crystalized by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court, this Court deems it apt and proper to dispose off the present writ petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file separate representations, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 7. In case, such representation is/are filed before the respondent no. 2, he shall take up the same and bring to its logical conclusion preferably within a period of further eight weeks, keeping in mind the observations and the discussions made hereinabove, as also the Bihar State Litigation Policy, specially Rule 4(C)(1) thereof. 8. It is made clear that if the claim of the petitioners find identical to those who have been accorded the relief as prayed for in the writ petition, the identical relief must be accorded to the petitioners."
A batch of sixty writ petitioners had approached the High Court seeking a direction upon the respondents, especially the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar to grant the benefit with regard to trained scale with effect from the date of completion of training course strictly in terms of 10-page long judgment dated February 1, 2021 passed by Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh of the High Court in Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 7938 of 2020, which stood affirmed and upheld up to the Supreme Court.
The petitioners had also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, the Respondent no.2 to act in terms of Clause 4(C) (i) of Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 that if an employee’s claim is covered by an existing Court judgment, the relevant Government Department must settle the claim internally.
Justice Singh had concluded: "13. The Court was contemplating imposition of cost noticing palpably arbitrary action of the State respondents which generated unnecessary litigation. Instead of imposing cost it has been considered apt to issue a note of caution for the Respondents to be fair and reasonable in future in such matters, particularly when the matters relate to implementation of Court’s orders. It is, however, directed in the facts and circumstances that let the respondents ensure that their actions may not generate unnecessary further litigation and this Court’s orders are uniformly applied in respect of similarly situated employees, as is expected of a model employer."
Notably in Manoj Kumar's case the petitioners had relied on the 4-page long order dated August 9, 2019 by Justice (Dr.) Anil Kumar Upadhyay of the Patna High Court passed in Kishor Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 16165 of 2019). Justice Singh's judgment drew heavily on this judgement with approval. The order in Kishor Kumar's case drew on the decisions in All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City: AIR 1954 Bom. 232 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar: AIR 1989 SC 1133.
The petitioners were initially appointed either as Panchayat Teacher or Prakhand Teacher in terms of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012 in the different districts and subsequently they were sent for Teachers Training. Subsequently, the petitioners were admitted in in service Diploma in Elementary Education for the Sessions 2015-17 and 2016-2018. Despite their training having been completed much earlier, but the examination was conducted in October-November, 2018 and the result was published on January 19, 2019.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were also entitled to get the grade pay/trained pay scale from the date of completion of training in terms with the decision of the High Court passed in Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 7938 of 2020.
Drawing on decision, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners was fully covered with the order of the High Court against which the State preferred L.P.A. No. 456 of 2021 which was dismissed by the order dated April 3, 2025 as well as by a 1-page long order dated January 2026 in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 66035/2025, however, both the appeals stood dismissed and the order of the High Court got affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment