PRAMOD BAN BIHARI SINGH Vs. RAJKIYA BUNIYADI VIDYALAYA SIKSHAK SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appellant has been convicted by S. K. Jha, J., under section 12 of the said Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(2.) The appellant was posted as Regional Deputy Director of Education at Patna (hereinafter called as R.D.D.E.). He joined this posting in July, 1984. As R.D.D.E. his work of official activities covered Basic schools in which education was imparted till Class VIII. Till March, 1972 education was imparted in Middle Schools and Basic Schools till Class VIII. Thereafter, teaching in Class VIII was discontinued. Subsequently from January, 1979 teaching in Class VIII in such schools was once again resumed. On 1-9-1979 the State Government issued a Circular outlining the policy in regard to teaching in Class VIII in Middle schools and Basic schools and the modality for selection of teachers for grant of salary of B.A. trained teachers. Respondents 2 to 16 who were petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.4100 of 1984 were B.A. trained teachers teaching in Basic schools. Prior to January, 1979 only one teacher, i.e. the headmaster of Middle/Basic schools was paid the salary of B.A. trained teachers. In 1980 by the Circular issued by the State Government which was Annexure 2 to the writ application, it was decided that the scale of B. A. trained teacher would be accorded to one more teacher besides the headmaster in schools where teaching was to be done up to Class VIII. It has been asserted that in terms to the above policy decision, teachers in Basic schools in Tirhut, North Chhotanagpur, South Chhotanagpur and Saran Divisions had been paid the salary of B.A. trained teachers on the second post purporting to act in terms of Government Circular No.Lwa./3-02363/79 SHI-285 dated 20-12-1979 (Annexure-1) the then R.D.D.E., Patna ordered by orders dated 14-2-1984 and 28-3-1984( Annexures 1A and 1B) that the fifteen respondents (Respondents 2 to 16) would be paid the salary of B.A. trained teachers with effect from 1-4-1980. From 4-7-1984 the then R.D.D.E. went away on leave preparatory to retirement and the appellant took over charge from her. Shortly after assuming charge, the appellant learnt about the grant of B. A. trained teachers scale to 55 teachers including the 15 petitioners of the writ application. In his view there was no sanctioned post available for B.A. trained teachers. He, therefore, by Annexure 6 to the writ application dated 13-7-1984 stayed the payments of B.A. trained teachers to all of them until fresh orders were passed. That annexure also shows that on the very same day the appellant referred the matter to Director, Primary Education and enquired whether creation of second post of B.A. trained teachers had been sanctioned. If it had been so sanctioned, when had it been sanctioned. It was requested that a copy of that order creating the post might be forwarded to him. Fifteen beneficiaries and Rajkiya Buniyadi Vidyalaya Sikshak Sangh, Patna Division moved this Court by C.W.J.C. No.4100 of 1984 on 17-8-1984, for quashing the order of stay passed by the R.D.D.E. The order was Annexure-6 to the writ application. The matter was listed for admission on 6-11-1984. On that day S. K. Jha, J. admitted the application. His Lordship ordered that the matter may be listed for final hearing at an early date, as the Hon'ble Chief Justice may fix, in view of the fact that no interim order was being passed. Part of the order reads as follows : -

(3.) The above order shows clearly that n9 specific interim order was passed. The order was for payment of minimum legal dues. The petitioners in the writ application were claiming the salary admissible to B.A. trained teachers. The stand of the R. D.D.E. was that they were not entitled to the scale of B. A. trained and that they were entitled only to the scale of Matriculate trained. In that clash of claims, payment of minimum legal dues could only mean payment of matric trained scale. The order of the appellant contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application dated 13-7-1984 thus remained operative.