JAGDEO BHINDWAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The twenty three, petitioners before the court are Assistant Teachers in Government Sanskrit schools. They seek a direction to the respondent authorities to extend to them, like the other teachers of the erstwhile Bihar Subordinate Education Service, the benefits following from absorption in Bihar Education Service Class II.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the Assistant Teachers appointed in Government Sanskrit High Schools were recognised as members of Subordinate Education Service and were also given pay scale admissible to the teachers of Subordinate Education Service. The petitioners claim is primarily based on a resolution of the Finance Department, dated 11.4.1977 and it is their case that by that resolution the Subordinate Education Service of the State was merged with the Bihar Education Service with effect from 1.1.1977. Apart from the resolution, dated 11.4.1977 the petitioners rely upon a decision of this court in CWJC No. 12122 of 1998. The order passed in that case by a Single Judge on 2.2.2000 was affirmed by the Division bench by order, dated 27.11.2000 in L.P.A. Nos. 980 and 998 of 2000. The State took the matter before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2003 but that too was dismissed by order, dated 19.4.2006. The petitioners further rely upon another resolution of the State Govt., dated 7.7.2006 issued under the hand of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development. They also seek to challenge the order, dated 8.9.2006 by which the Director, Secondary Education held that there was no question of absorption of Assistant Teachers of the Govt. Sanskrit Schools in the Bihar Education Service because a number of Assistant Teachers in Govt. Sanskrit Schools were granted the higher scale of Rs. 6500-10500.00 in place of the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000.00 admissible for the post by giving an undertaking that they would not claim promotion in Bihar Education Service. On behalf of the petitioners it is pointed out that they were neither getting the higher scale of pay nor any sort of undertaking was given on their behalf.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that the Subordinate Education Service consisted of following four branches: