Disposed¶30

Vindhyachal Thakur v. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board

Patna HC8 May 2025CWJC/9492/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vindhyachal Thakur v. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board; CWJC No.9492 of 2021; Patna High Court; decided 08-05-2025; unpaid salary 01.05.1992 to 31.12.2012; temporary teacher not made permanent; sanctioned vacant post; Memo No.7641 dated 04.10.1989; Memo No.3372 dated 06.11.2019 held unsustainable for lack of basic reasons; retiral dues and salary deductions claimed; Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board directed to hear petitioner and pass fresh order; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order based on the records; the impugned order (Memo no.3372 dated 06.11.2019) was held unable to sustain. ¶30

Vindhyachal Thakur Vs The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether there was any sanctioned vacant post in the school, so that the petitioner could be appointed on a permanent basis. +2 more

¶22

Ratio / Principle

This Court can interfere with the order denying the payment of due salary to the petitioner for the period 01.05.1992 to 31.12.2012.

¶25

Key takeaways

The order contained in Memo no.3372 dated 06.11.2019, issued without giving basic reasons in support of the denial of due salary to the petitioner who claimed to have worked on the permanent sanctioned post as a permanent teacher, cannot sustain.ratio¶28
The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board is directed to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, based on the records, must pass a fresh order.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PATNA HIGH COURT (Purnendu Singh, J) - CWJC No.9492 of 2021, decided 08-05-2025. Petitioner Vindhyachal Thakur, appointed pursuant to an advertisement dated 31.08.1989 of the Managing Committee of Laxmiwati Sanskrit High School, Mahrail, Madhubani and an appointment letter dated 07.09.1989 (appointment approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board for six months as a temporary teacher vide Memo No.7641 dated 04.10.1989), sought quashing of Memo No.3372 dated 06/11/19 issued by the Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, and payment of due salary and emoluments from 01/05/1992 to 31/12/2012 with interest, retiral dues, and refund of deductions from 14/10/1989 to 30/04/1992 treating service as continuous. The Board contended the petitioner was never appointed as a permanent teacher against a sanctioned vacant post. The State and Board admitted salary was paid only from 14.10.1989 to 30.04.1992; the impugned order gave no information on the date of approval/sanction of Acharya teacher posts and no basic reasons for denying salary. Holding: the order in Memo no.3372 dated 06.11.2019, lacking basic reasons in support of the denial, cannot sustain; the Court stated it can interfere with the order denying due salary, and directed the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order based on the records. Writ petition disposed of. No statute or precedent cited; no quantum stated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9492 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Vindhyachal Thakur son of Late Bhavanand Thakur, resident of Ward No.- 8, Nawani, P.S.- Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board through its Secretary.

¶7

The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.

¶8

The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.

¶9

The District Education Officer, Madhubani.

¶10

The District Programme Officer, Madhubani.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate For the Board : Ms. Kumari Sujata Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 08-05-2025

¶14

Heard Mr. Abhinay Raj, learned counsel appearing

¶15

on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Kumari Sujata Sinha, learned counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board.

¶16

The writ petition was filed during the COVID period and the petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶17

“1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing of order contained in Memo No.3372 dated 06/11/19 issued by the Chairman Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and for consequential direction upon the Respondent Authorities for payment of due salary and other emoluments of the petitioner from 01/05/1992 to 31/12/2012, with up-todate interest at appropriate rate which may be fixed by the Hon'ble Court. For a further direction for calculation and payment of retiral dues of the petitioner with up-todate interest as well as for payment of the deductions made from the salary of the petitioner during his service

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.9492 of 2021(3) dt.08-05-2025 2/4

¶19

tenure from 14/10/1989 to 30/04/1992, considering his service to be in continuity.”

¶20

Ms. Kumari Sujata Sinha, learned counsel

¶21

appearing on behalf of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board submits that the record reveals that the appointment of the petitioner was not permanent. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Board for a period of six months as a temporary teacher vide Memo No. 7641 dated 04.10.1989. The petitioner was never appointed as a permanent teacher against the sanctioned vacant post, as such, he was not paid due salary from the period from 01.05.1992 to 31.12.2012.

¶22

When the Managing Committee of the school has not made the petitioner permanent teacher, the question arises whether there was any sanctioned vacant post in the school, then only the petitioner can be appointed on permanent basis.

¶23

The petitioner has not been able to give the basic information regarding the date of sanction of the number of posts, which were approved and the number of teachers, who were appointed on the permanent sanctioned vacant post. An advertisement was published on 31.08.1989 by the Managing Committee of the School, namely, Laxmiwati Sanskrit High School, Mahrail, Madhubani and pursuant to which, the letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 07.09.1989.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.9492 of 2021(3) dt.08-05-2025 3/4

¶25

Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, I find that the record reveals that the Managing Committee of the School, namely, Laxmiwati Sanskrit High School, Mahrail, Madhubani had published an advertisement dated 31.08.1989, but the petitioner has not given information, as to whether, the advertisement for appointment of Sahityachary was approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, however, even considering the fact that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the said advertisement and the letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 07.09.1989, in absence of basic information relating to the number of sanctioned vacant post, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner was working as a temporary teacher, till 31.12.2012, the entitlement of the petitioner applicable to the permanent teacher from 01.05.1992 to 31.12.2012, as claimed by the petitioner, in view of the approval for permanent post having been not acted upon by the Board till date, whether for inaction on the part of the Board, the petitioner can be allowed to face the penal consequences on the ground of non-payment of his due salary. This Court can interfere with the order denying the payment of due salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period.

¶26

In view of the fact that the State, as well as, the

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.9492 of 2021(3) dt.08-05-2025 4/4

¶28

Board have admitted that the petitioner has been paid due salary from 14.10.1989 to 30.04.1992, in the impugned order, no information relating to the date of approval of the number of posts of Acharya teachers has been given and the petitioner has claimed that he topped among the eligible candidates in the merit list and thereafter he was appointed and paid due salary as per his eligibility on the post of permanent teacher from 14.10.1989 to 30.04.1992, and for the period from 01.05.1992 to 31.12.2012, he had continuously worked, but he was not paid, as such, the order contained in Memo no.3372 dated 06.11.2019 without giving basic reasons in support of the denial of due salary to the petitioner, who has claimed that he has worked on the permanent sanctioned post as a permanent teacher, cannot sustain.

¶29

The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board is directed to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and based on the records must pass a fresh order.

¶30

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶32

Mantreshwar/Ashishsingh/- U

Vindhyachal Thakur v. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindhyachal Thakur v. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajbali Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Sanokha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar @ Manish Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Shiv Shankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Lalita Devi Vs The Union of India, through the Secretary

Md. Ashraful Haque Vs The State of Bihar