Disposed¶38

Krishna Bihari Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Dec 2024CWJC/5804/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unpaid salary of Sanskrit school teacher; appointment dated 26.09.1989 approved by Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board on 21.12.1989; State take-over of private Sanskrit schools on 18.12.1989; whether post-take-over approval invalidates pre-take-over appointment; Rule 8, Chapter 3, Bihar Rajya Sarkari Sanskrit Uchch Vidyalaya Niyamavali 1976; Special Director (Secondary Education) order dated 13.09.2011 (Appeal No.58 of 2010); earlier CWJC No.12034 of 1993 and Board order dated 24.11.1997; entitlement to salary, consequential benefits and retiral benefits; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Payment of salary and all other consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of his appointment till the date of his superannuation, together with retiral benefits in accordance with law; writ petition disposed of. ¶38

Krishna Bihari Pandey Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's appointment (made on 26.09.1989 and approved by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board on 21.12.1989) was invalidated by the State Government's take-over of the school on 18.12.1989, so as to disentitle him to salary. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The recruitment advertisement (approved by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board and published 01.09.1989) and the interview/selection process were completed before the school was taken over by the State Government on 18.12.1989; Annexure-3 shows the petitioner was appointed on 26.09.1989, before the take-over, and only the approval of his appointment issued on 21.12.1989.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

It was not the respondents' case that the Sanskrit Shiksha Board stood abolished upon the take-over of Sanskrit Schools; had that been so, any approval made by the Board after 18.12.1989 would not have been in accordance with law - a consideration the State Government failed to address.

¶31

Key takeaways

Relying on the Special Director's order (Annexure-7), which recorded the petitioner's approval by the Board effective 14.12.1989 when the power of approval vested in the Board and treated his approval as of September 1989 under Rule 8 of Chapter 3 of the Bihar Rajya Sarkari Sanskrit Uchch Vidyalaya Niyamavali 1976, the Court declined to accept the respondents' submission that the petitioner's appointment was made by the Managing Committee after the school was taken over by the State Government.ratio¶37
The petitioner is entitled to his salary and all other consequential benefits from the date of his appointment till the date of his superannuation, and is also entitled to retiral benefits in accordance with law.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.), by order dated 03-12-2024 in CWJC No.5804 of 2021, disposed of a writ petition by a teacher of Bishnu Dipan Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Balak Vidyalaya, Simri, seeking unpaid salary. The petitioner, selected against a Madhyama-post advertisement published on 01.09.1989 with Sanskrit Shiksha Board approval, was appointed on 26.09.1989 and his appointment was approved by the Board on 21.12.1989; the school was taken over by the State Government on 18.12.1989. Rejecting the State's contention that the appointment post-dated the take-over and was therefore void, the Court found the advertisement and selection predated the take-over, noted that the Board was not shown to have been abolished on take-over, and relied on the Special Director's order (Annexure-7) approving the petitioner effective 14.12.1989 and treating his approval as of September 1989 under Rule 8, Chapter 3 of the Bihar Rajya Sarkari Sanskrit Uchch Vidyalaya Niyamavali, 1976. The petitioner was held entitled to salary and consequential benefits from the date of appointment till superannuation, and to retiral benefits in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5804 of 2021

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Krishna Bihari Pandey Son of Late Parash Nath Pandey, resident of Village Simri Ramopatti, P.O. and P.S.-Simari, District-Buxar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar.

¶7

The Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Special Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The District Education Officer (Establishment), Buxar.

¶10

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Buxar.

¶11

The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna.

¶12

The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shree Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, GP-17 For the B.S.S. Board : Ms. Kumari Sujata Sinha, Advocate

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶19

8 03-12-2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶20

Irregularities in appointment as Teachers by the

¶21

Erstwhile Managing Committee of Bishnu Dipan Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Balak Vidyalaya, Simri is the root cause for irregularities, regarding payment of salary to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Managing Committee of the said School on due approval of Sanskrit Shiksha Board on 07.08.1989 published an advertisement on 01.09.1989 for appointment of one Science Teacher, two teachers having Madhyama qualification and one Matric Trained Teacher. The

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.5804 of 2021(8) dt.03-12-2024 2/5

¶23

petitioner having qualification of “Shashtri” applied for Madhyama post, another candidate, namely, Bipin Bihari Pandey also applied in the said post. Subsequently, after interview the petitioner was selected and appointed on 26.09.1989 on the basis of the appointment letter issued by the Managing Committee. The said appointment letter was approved by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board on 21.12.1989. Since then the petitioner was working but he was not paid any salary.

¶24

Non-payment of salary prompted the petitioner to file CWJC No.12034 of 1993, which was disposed of on 16.02.1995, the matter was remanded back to the Sanskrit Shiksha Board for decision. The Sanskrit Shiksha Board vide its order dated 24.11.1997 allowed the claim of the petitioner and directed payment of salary to him as well as another teacher, namely, Rajnath Singh.

¶25

It is contended by the petitioner that salary was paid to Rajnath Singh but it was not paid to the petitioner. He preferred an appeal being Appeal No.58 of 2010 before the Special Director (Secondary Education) praying for disbursement of his salary for the work done by him. The said appeal was allowed by the Special Directors (Secondary Education) vide order dated 13.09.2011.

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.5804 of 2021(8) dt.03-12-2024 3/5

¶27

It is contended on behalf of the State-Respondents, on the contrary, that the petitioner was appointed on 21.12.1989 by Bihar Sanskrit Education Board. However, the Sanskrit Schools run by the private Managing Committees were taken over by the State Government on 18.12.1989. Since the petitioner’s appointment was made by the Managing Committee after the school was taken over by the State Government, the initial appointment of the petitioner is bad in law and therefore, he is not entitled for salary.

¶28

On careful perusal of the entire materials on record, it appears that the advertisement for recruitment of Madhyama Teachers was published by the Managing Committee after being approved by Sanskrit Shiksha Board on 01.09.1989 when the school was not taken over by the State Government. The interview was held and selection process was done before 18.12.1989 when the school was taken over by the State Government. Annexure-3 of the writ petition suggests that the petitioner was appointed on 26.09.1989, which is before taking over of the school by the State Government. Only his appointment was approved on 21.12.1989 by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board.

¶29

It is not the case of the respondents that on taking

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.5804 of 2021(8) dt.03-12-2024 4/5

¶31

over Sanskrit Schools, Sanskrit Shiksha Board was abolished. Had it been the case, then any approval made by Sanskrit Shiksha Board would have been treated not in accordance with law after 18.12.1989. This issue has not been considered by the State Government in the instant case.

¶32

Be that as it may, this Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction is not in a position to decide the rival factual issues as raised by the petitioner and the State-Respondents.

¶33

It appears from Annexure-7 at Page-29 of the writ petition that the Special Director, Madhyamik Examination, Human Resource Development Department, Bihar considered the said fact in the order and held as hereunder :-

¶34

^^laca/k i{kksa dks lquus ,oa nkf[ky vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls Li’V gksrk gS fd oknh d’.k fcgkjh ik.Ms; dk vuqeksnu cksMZ }kjk 2112-1989 dks fn;k x;k gSA tcfd vfHkys[k ns[kus ls izfrr gksrk gS fd v/;{k] }kjk budk vuqeksnu 14-12-1989 dks n;k x;kA vr,o Jh ik.Ms; dk vuqeksnu 14-12-1989 ls gh ekuk tk;sxkA ml le; vuqeksnu dh “kfDr cksMZ dh FkhA lkFk gh fcgkj jkT; ij ljdkjh laLdr mPp fo|ky; fu;ekoyh 1976 ds v/;k;&3 ds fu;e 8 ds vuqlkj Hkh mudk vuqeksnu flrEcj 1989 ekuk tk;sxkA lkFk gh lkFk jktukFk flag fo|ky; esa dk;Zjr gS ftldh iq’Vh ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh cDlj ds fjiksVZ fnukad 28-11-2002 ,oa 03-02-2006 ds lkQ tkfgj ekuk tk;sxk buds izfr}Unh nhukukFk ik.Ms; fo|ky; NksM+ pqds gSaA^^

¶35

Therefore, I am not in a position to considered the

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.5804 of 2021(8) dt.03-12-2024 5/5

¶37

submission made on behalf of the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner was made by the Managing Committee after the school was taken over by the State Government.

¶38

For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is entitled to get his salary and all other consequential benefits from the date of his appointment, till the date of his superannuation. He is also entitled to retiral benefits in accordance with law.

¶39

The instant writ petition is accordingly, disposed

¶40

of.

¶41

This Court records a note of appreciation of the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents as they helped this Court by filing written arguments containing different list of dates in a fair and dispassionate manner enabling this Court to decide the issue.

¶42

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶43

mdrashid/-

¶44

Krishna Bihari Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Bihari Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Chiranjib Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Vs The Patliputra University

Rajan Kumar Vs The Chancellor of Universities

Rajeshari Kumari Vs The State of Bihar