D.N.Patel,J. - (1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2996 of 2009 dated 12th March, 2014 whereby, the petition preferred by the present respondent has been allowed by the learned Single Judge against which the original respondents have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent was appointed as a Teacher in erstwhile State of Bihar on 4th November, 1994 and she was getting the pay scale of Trained Teacher. Her initial pay scale was Rs. 1500-2750/- thereafter, it was enhanced upto Rs. 5500-9000/- with effect from 8th February, 1999. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that thereafter in her service book her pay scale was reduced to Rs. 4000-6000/-. Thereafter, a writ petition was preferred being W.P.(S) No 280 of 2002 by the respondent. Initially, stay was granted by this Court and thereafter, the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 27th February, 2008 and the liberty was reserved with the State to pass afresh order and therefore, Government of Jharkhand passed an order dated 24th November, 2008 (Annexure-12 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) whereby, the pay scale of the respondent (original petitioner) was reduced from Rs. 5500-9000/- to Rs. 4000-6000/-. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the original petitioner was never a Trained Teacher. She was appointed on 4th November, 1994 which was wrongly given by the erstwhile State of Bihar the pay scale of Trained Teacher. Even in the State of Bihar, a Circular was issued dated 4th April, 2002 (Annexure-3) to give the pay scale of Untrained Teacher, to those Teachers, who were appointed as Untrained Teachers. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and therefore, the order of recovery can also not be quashed by the learned Single Judge as the respondent was wrongly given a pay scale of a Trained Teacher instead of pay scale of Untrained Teacher.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent (original petitioner) submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition and quashing the order passed by the State of Jharkhand dated 24th November, 2008 (Annexure-12 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). The respondent was appointed as a Teacher on 4th November, 1994 initially, in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2750/- which was increased upto Rs. 5500-9000/-. Respondent (original petitioner) was sent for training in the year 2005-06 and necessary training certificate was also given to the respondent of B.Ed in the year 2008. Thus, after 2008, the petitioner was entitled to grade of Trained Teacher. Now the only question is left out is after 1994 and prior to 2008. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that there is no fraud played by the respondent nor there is any misappropriation by the respondent (original petitioner). The pay scale fixed by the Government was received by the respondent. If at all there is any error on the part of the State then the respondent was not liable at all.;