SIYA RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present litigation is not first of its kind, when the petitioner has been compelled by the respondents to approach this Court for assertion of his right to claim benefit of B.A. trained scale, especially in the circumstances, when juniors to the petitioner had been given this benefit years' ago. The first Writ Application in this regard was C.W.J.C. No. 7626 of 1998, which was heard and decided on 29.9.1999. This Order is Annexure-1 to the Writ Application. Reading of the said Order would indicate that the only reason why the petitioner was not given the benefit of B.A. trained scale vis-a-vis his juniors was that due to inadvertence the petitioner's name could not be included in the gradation list, which was prepared. The Court, therefore, gave a clear and categorical direction that:-

(2.) Despite a categorical direction, issued by the High Court, which has been quoted above, as far back as in the year 1999, things did not move for the petitioner. He had to approach the High Court by filing a Contempt Application and order of which is Annexure-4 to the present Writ Application. During the pendency, the respondent-authorities decided to issue a notification in the year 2004, whereby petitioner was given the benefit, but only from the date of his joining in the school, which was notified in the said notification, which is now Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Annexure-9 is dated 10.2.2004, which indicates that in light of the order of the C.W.J.C. as well as the Contempt, petitioner is being given benefit of Graduate Trained Scale from 13.3.1982, but this promotion and benefit will accrue from the date of his joining.

(3.) Petitioner, therefore, is again back to the Court making a grievance that this is a totally arbitrary decision on the part of the respondents to deny him substantial benefit of the financial kind for no apparent fault of the petitioner. If Annexure-1 is looked into again it is evident that non-denial of the benefit to the petitioner visa-vis his juniors was attributable to the respondent-State and not to the petitioner. Despite an order passed by the High Court in the year 1999 they took more than five years to decide to grant benefit to the petitioner, but only notional.