ARUN KUMAR DEO S/O LATE RADHA PD.DEO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though details and controversy involved in the present case as noted in earlier order dated 2.7.2010 of this Court and counter affidavit has been filed, the facts need be revisited. At the cost of repetition it is to be recorded that this case shows a ridiculous extent to which the State can go to deny legitimate dues of a school teacher.

(2.) The counter affidavit having been filed, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(3.) There is no dispute that the petitioner was employed in a private school prior to 1.1.1971. It is not in dispute that the school was taken over under the provisions of Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1976. After the takeover of the school, the list of teachers and non-teaching working at the time of takeover was sent to the Government and the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, in the year 1988, granted approval to the service of the petitioner as teacher. Suddenly thereafter, petitioner's salary was stopped. He represented to the Director but receiving no response, he moved this Court. This Court asked the petitioner to file representation before the Director, Primary Education. Representation being filed in 1994, Director, Primary Education now cancelled the approval earlier granted on the ground that petitioner was under 18 years of age at the time of appointment. The petitioner challenged this order before this Court. This Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Director, Primary Education. Upon reconsideration, this time the Director held that it was not possible to sustain the stand that petitioner was a minor but once again cancelled the approval on a new ground that the petitioner was matriculate and untrained teacher, as such, his appointment was illegal in view of a circular of the State Government of the year 1969. In view of this cancellation of approval for the second time on a new ground, petitioner again moved this Court. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 390 of 1997 held that in view of later circular issued with reference to Section 8 of the aforesaid Take Over Act, the cut off date for the purpose of recruiting trained teacher was 1.1.1977 and, admittedly, the petitioner was recruited before that date, his appointment could not be termed as illegal. Thus, the shots fired by the Director, Primary Education failed to hit the target. The Director then preferred Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed in limine. For sometime petitioner was then paid his salary but still someone for some reason was still "unsatisfied" Petitioner then came to this Court for the third time seeking direction to regularize payment of his salary and clearing his arrears since the time of takeover. This Court directed the authorities to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders immediately. Pursuant to orders of this Court, the matter of petitioner's entitlement to salary from the Government and the arrears in relation thereto was examined at the district level where all records were available and after examining the records it was found that up to 1973 petitioner was liable to be paid by the Government. Detail calculations were made quantifying the demand and sent to the State Government so that money could be sanctioned for payment of petitioner's long standing dues. Ordinarily, one would have expected that after getting this calculation verified and confirmed, the authorities would direct payment but, as noted above, someone somewhere remained "unsatisfied". A fatal shot had to be fired, the Director then tells the petitioner to produce the notifications issued from the Directorate itself taking over the school. The tragedy is that the Directorate which took over the school, which issued the notification of takeover, which approved the services of the petitioner, and which twice sought to terminate the services of the petitioner suddenly loses all records in the labyrinthin of Secretariat and the onus is put entirely up to pity village assistant teacher to discover, find and produce all those Government records before the Government itself. This shows the ridiculous extent to which the Directorate of Primary Education has gone to harass the petitioner, as noted above, because someone somewhere was "unsatisfied". The liability towards payment of arrears of salary was substantial. It is under these circumstances and noticing these facts, the Court had directed a comprehensive counter affidavit to be filed as even though six months had elapsed since filing of the writ petition, no counter affidavit from the Directorate, which is at Patna itself, was forthcoming.