Allowed

Jamwanti Devi and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC6 Jul 2012CWJC/11428/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a writ petition by trained school teachers claiming salary from 1.1.1982. The Court set aside the Director's order of 28.3.2012 which denied salary prior to 1.4.1986, remanding the matter for a fresh reasoned order to align with the earlier judgment in C.W.J.C. No.7638/91.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.3.2012 set aside; matter remanded to Director for fresh reasoned order within two months.

Jamwanti Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11428 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Jamwanti Devi D/O Bandhu Singh R/O Village- Bhadhari, Police Station- Bhabua, District- Kaimur 2. Gupteshwar Pandey S/O Late Shiv Shankar Pandey R/O VillageAlampur, Police Station- Shivsagar, District- Rohtas 3. Lalan Prasad Gupt S/O Badri Prasad Gupta R/O Village- Natwar, Police Station- Natwar, District- Rohtas 4. Ramgee Prasad Chaturvedi S/O Late Sarju Chaubey R/O VillageDhanadhi, Police Station- Sasaram, District- Rohtas 5. Rajgrihi Singh S/O Late Ram Naresh Singh R/O Village- Biso Dihari, Police Station- Karahgar, District- Rohtas 6. Binod Kumar Singh S/O Late Ramroop Singh R/O Village- Dihara, Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur 7. Kameshwar Pandey S/O Late Ganesh Pandey R/O Village- Devkali, Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur 8. Janeshwar Prasad Singh S/O Kedar Singh R/O Village- Dihara, Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur 9. Kamta Prasad Singh S/O Late Ram Pratap Singh R/O Village- Sakari, Police Station- Kudra, District-Kaimur 10. Lilawati Devi W/O Sheopujan Kharwar R/O Village- Sakari, Police Station- Kudra, District-Kaimur 11. Shambhu Singh S/O Late Yadubansh Singh R/O Village- Sakari, Police Station- Kudra, District- Kaimur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Secondary Education Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Education Officer, Kaimur At Bhabua 4. The District Education Officer, Rohtas At Sasaram .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Sagar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. G.K. Agrwal Ga10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 06-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the Director (Secondary Education),

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.11428 of 2012 (2) dt.06-07-2012

¶4

¶5

Bihar. It rejects their claim for salary as trained teachers from 1.1.1982 and holds that they were legitimately entitled to the same from 1.4.1986 only in accordance with Government notification dated 19.7.1986.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that C.W.J.C. No.9255/98 filed by them for the same relief was disposed on 1.10.1999 setting aside the rejection directing fresh consideration. The petitioners filed a representation on 10.10.2000 inter alia enclosing a copy of order dated 2.11.1995 memo No.478 which directs payment of salary from 1.1.1982 by a reasoned order referring to the directions of the Court in C.W.J.C. No.7638/91 disposed on 2.9.1992. There can be no justification for the Director to hold that the relief granted to similarly situated under the directions of the Court was contrary to the law.

¶7

Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order is reasoned holding that the relief sought was in pursuance of Memo. No.405 dated 19.7.1986. The order rightly holds that if a benefit was wrongly granted to others by an incorrect interpretation, the petitioners cannot demand perpetuation of the illegality.

¶8

The orders of this Court in the writ application filed by the petitioners was passed in 1999. The petitioners filed a representation in 2000. Thereafter both sides went to sleep. The writ application to that extent was fit to be dismissed on

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.11428 of 2012 (2) dt.06-07-2012

¶10

¶11

the grounds of delay and laches. But the respondents voluntarily invoked fresh life into the controversy by passing the impugned order dated 28.3.2012. A copy of Memo. No.478 dated 2.11.1995 has been brought on record. It was also annexed to the representation filed by the petitioners. A reading of the same manifests that in C.W.J.C. No.7638/91 disposed on 2.9.1992 this Court had directed payment of salary from 1.1.1982 or the date of appointment whichever be later. M.J.C. No.330/95 was filed for non-compliance. Thereafter, the order considers the matter on merits to arrive at a reasoned conclusion why the authorities were satisfied also that salary was to be paid from 1.1.1982.

¶12

Once a judicial determination was arrived at and a departmental order issued in pursuance of the order of the Court during the pendency of a contempt application years ago, the Court has serious observations if the Director (Secondary Education) could act in a manner virtually sitting over the judgment of the Court in C.W.J.C. No.7638/91. Prudence dictated that if the Director for any reason was dissatisfied with the contents of Memo No.478 dated 2.11.1995 he should have called for the office records and perused the judgment dated 2.9.1992 in C.W.J.C. No.7638/91 and/or alternatively requested the petitioners to produce the same if it was not available in the official records and then passed final appropriate orders. The fact that Memo

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.11428 of 2012 (2) dt.06-07-2012

¶14

¶15

No.478 dated 2.11.1995 refers to C.W.J.C. No.7638/91 raises a presumption that the order in the writ petition is available in the records.

¶16

The order dated 28.3.2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Director for passing a fresh reasoned and speaking order in light of the discussions contained herein preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶17

The writ application is allowed.

¶18

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶19

K.C.jha/-

Jamwanti Devi and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamwanti Devi and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Paswan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shushila Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt.Arti Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Geeta Jaiswal Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Atal Bihari Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dipesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.