Challenging a resolution imposing retroactive salary reductions, the court held that appointments made to aided schools before the interim order cannot be modified by a subsequent order, preserving existing pay scales.
The writ petition is allowed; parties left to suffer their respective costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24523 of 2018
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binod Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey (AAG-15) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 24-06-2023
The issue raised herein revolves around two resolutions, one dated 15.02.2011 and the other dated 31.08.2013; which controversy was resolved by the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 985 of 2015 dated 27.03.2019. A reading of the said decision would indicate that there were 1128
Patna High Court CWJC No.24523 of 2018 dt.24-06-2023 2/4
Madarsas in the State of Bihar that was recognized as aided Madarsas managed by private bodies. The resolution dated 15.02.2011 took note of 2459 unrecognized and unaided Madarsas, registered with the Madarsa Board which were also sought to be brought into the grant-in-aid list, for the purpose of extending State benefit to them. The resolution dated 15.02.2011 specifically provided for granting Government aid to such unrecognized Madarsas for which purpose a departmental survey was contemplated to determine the status of the said Madarsas and enable grant-in-aid to those found eligible. As far as grant-in-aid with respect to salaries to be paid to the employees of the Madarsas, a fixed rate was provided which was applicable only to those unrecognized Madarsas as on 15.02.2011. Later, by the impugned resolution dated 31.08.2013, the fixed rate was sought to be applied in respect of all appointments in the Madarsas and Sanskrit schools irrespective of their status of recognition and receipt of grant-inaid prior to 15.02.2011. In essence, the argument of the State was that the resolution of 15.02.2011 applied to all the Madarsas, both recognized and un-recongized. The Division Bench held that the resolution dated 15.02.2011 was only applicable to the un-recongized Madarsas and appointments
Patna High Court CWJC No.24523 of 2018 dt.24-06-2023 3/4
made to such Madarsas after recognition is granted to enable grant-in-aid. The said resolution did not at all deal with the Madarsas which were receiving grant-in-aid before 15.02.2011. It was by the resolution dated 31.08.2013 that the condition of a consolidated sum of salary was sought to be imposed on all the Madarsas and Sanskrit schools. The said resolution could not have been applied retrospectively to appointments made before 31.08.2013; especially when the resolution of 15.02.2011 did not at all bring in such condition to the appointments made in Madarsas which were already receiving grant-in-aid. The persons who were appointed to the Madarsas recognized and aided prior to 15.02.2011; between 15.02.2011 and 31.08.2013, were appointed to and occupying regular posts with regular pay scales which could not have been interfered with retrospectively, thus, depriving those persons of the regular pay of scale. We bow to the above proposition and find no reason to depart from the same.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24523 of 2018 dt.24-06-2023 4/4
Government Aided Sanskrit Schools which were recognized prior to 15.02.2011. In any event, if the separate appointments of the petitioners were made to such Sanskrit Schools, which were recognized prior to 15.02.2011 and which received grantin-aid prior to that date, necessarily, the petitioners would be entitled to be continued in the pay scale to which they were appointed, if they were appointed between 15.02.2011 and 31.08.2013 and there could be no modification made based on the subsequent resolution dated 31.08.2013.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
sharun/-
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 28.06.2023 |
| Transmission Date | N/A |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the resolution dated 31.08.2013 imposing a consolidated salary rate can be applied retrospectively to appointments made prior to its enactment in aided Sanskrit schools.
Whether petitioners appointed to non-government aided Sanskrit schools recognized and receiving grant-in-aid prior to 15.02.2011 are entitled to their original pay scale.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWJC No. 985 of 2015Relied on¶18
CWJC No. 985 of 2015
Manoj Kumar Suman and Anr.
State Of Bihar
K. Vinod Chandran
Partha Sarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
