MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF ARJUN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Manoj Kumar, Son Of Arjun Prasad Singh
STATE OF BIHAR
Click here to view full judgement.
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. -
(1.) The petitioners, 38 in number, have claimed that they were appointed as Panchayat Teachers in the District of Bhagalpur in different schools under different Panchayats. The Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') governed their appointments and service conditions. Rule 4 of the said Rules required that the competent authority shall make arrangements for training for a period of two years for such teachers who were untrained at the time of their engagement. The petitioners were sent for training, however, after considerable delay. They participated in the training and passed the required examination. Though they were appointed on different dates ranging from 14.08.2010 to 10.05.2012, as is evident from the statement made in paragraph 5 of the writ application, they have been granted benefit of trained scale from the date of publication of result. It is the petitioners' case that they are entitled to trained scale from the date of completion of their training and much belated publication of result should not be the basis for determination of date with effect from which they should be held to be entitled to trained scale. The petitioners have relied upon a decision of this Court dated 09.08.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16165 of 2019 (Kishor Kumar and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others) wherein the Court has held as under:-
"If there is no dispute that the petitioners were sent for training in academic sessions 2013-15 and the course was completed in May, 2017, there is no reason to deny the benefit of trained scale to these petitioners with effect from May, 2017 when the course was completed as the petitioners have completed their training but for the reason best known to the respondents the examination was not held in time and the result was published belatedly along with the junior batch.
Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director, Primary Education to consider the case of the petitioners and grant the benefit from the date of completion of training to the petitioners as the lapses on the part of the respondents cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of trained pay scale. It is now well settled that one cannot take advantage of his own wrong in defeating the genuine claim. Chief Justice Chhagla of Bombay High Court in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City , 1954 AIR(Bom) 232 has occasion to settle the principle on the similar line there is judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar , 1989 AIR(SC) 1133. The respondents have to take decision granting benefit of trained scale to the petitioners with effect from the date of completion of their training i.e. May, 2017. Necessary decision in this regard with all consequential monetary benefits must be taken by the Director, Secondary Education within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of."
(2.) Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petitioners have sought for quashing of letter issued vide Memo No. 52 dated 06.01.2020 by the District Programme Officer (Establishment) Bhagalpur (Respondent no. 5) to the extent the same relates to these petitioners whereby a decision has been taken to grant grade pay to the teachers (Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher) who were trained teachers of D. L. Ed. (O.D.L.) Session 2013-15 (B) from the date of declaration of the result i.e. 31.03.2019. It is the petitioners' case that they are entitled for the grade pay with effect from May, 2017. They are accordingly seeking a direction to the respondent nos. 2 and 5 to grant them benefit of grade pay with effect from successful completion of the training i.e. May, 2017. They are claiming their benefits strictly in terms of the judgment and order of this Court dated 09.08.2019 in case of Kishor Kumar and Others (supra).
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar. No averment made in the writ application has been denied in the counter affidavit. It is thus an undisputed fact that the petitioners were sent for training in the Session 2013-15 (B) for the course of Diploma in Elementary Education in accordance with the statutory requirement under Rule 4 of the Rules. Specific assertion that the petitioners completed their training in May, 2017 too has remained uncontroverted in the counter affidavit. It has, however, been stated in the counter affidavit that a decision has already been taken in the light of this Court's order dated 09.08.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16165 of 2019 (Kishor Kumar and Others) (supra) to grant trained scale 'notionally' to such untrained teachers who, though, had completed training in May, 2017 but their result was published in March, 2019. It has however been mentioned that monetary benefits have been allowed to such teachers from the date of publication of result. The order issued vide Memo No. 547 dated 22.06.2020 issued by the Director Primary Education, Government of Bihar has been brought on record by way of an Annexure to the counter affidavit which has been purportedly passed in compliance of this Court's order dated 09.08.2019 passed in case of Kishor Kumar and Others (supra). Referring to the said order dated 22.06.2020, it is the case of the State of Bihar that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.