RABINDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the respondents to count the petitioner's service since 25.03.1954 to 31.03.1997 for fixation of his post retiral benefits.

(2.) PETITIONER joined as Assistant Teacher in the M.C. High School, Gidhour, Jamui on 25.03.1954. The above stated school was an approved school with effect from 11.04.1946. Petitioner served the above stated school from 25.03.1954 to 17.01.1979 and subsequently, petitioner was given an opportunity to join at Bihari Lal Sharsaf High School, Rikhia, Deoghar as headmaster. Petitioner joined the said school on 18.01.1979 as headmaster and worked there up to 17.01.1988 and later on, he was transferred to J.B.C. High School, Jamtara District Dumka where he joined on 18.01.1988 and worked there till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.03.1997. After his superannuation he submitted relevant documents for grant of his post retirement benefits but his entire service period was not counted by the concerned respondents for grant of retirement benefits and, therefore, petitioner approached this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, petitioner, initially, joined in a recognized school and worked there till 17.01.1979 and thereafter, he was relieved from M.C. High School, Gidhour, District Jamui by the competent authority to join at Bihari Lal Sharsaf High School, Rikhia, Deoghar as headmaster and soon thereafter he joined the said school on 18.01.1979. It is contended by him that Bihari Lal Sharsaf High School, Rikhia, Deoghar was recognized by the Board vide memo No. 21430 -36 dated 13.11.1979 with effect from 01.01.1979 which is evident from perusal of Annexure -2 to the writ petition and, therefore, it is wrong to say that petitioner joined in an unrecognized school and there was breakage of service. It is further contended by him that the State Government issued a circular on 31.07.1980 which says that cases of teachers occasioned by resignation, dismissal or transfer from service and break in service caused by the participation in strike will lead to break in service. The aforesaid circular also provides that break in service of teachers as a result of any other circumstance or factor shall automatically be treated to be condoned. The aforesaid circular dated 31.07.1980 was, later on, modified by the State Government by issuance of circular dated 15.01.1982 and break in service of teachers caused by resignation was deleted as a consequence of which it would not result in break of service. Again the resolution dated 15.01.1982 was modified by the State Government by issuance of another resolution dated 18.07.1992 which provides that if a teacher joins an unrecognized, non governmental secondary school prior to getting recognition shall entail the consequence of break in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, petitioner joined Bihari Lal Sharsaf High School, Rikhia, Deoghar on 18.01.1979 and even if it assumed that above stated school was not a recognized school at the time of joining of the petitioner, then also, the break in service of the petitioner had already been condoned by the State Government by issuance of resolution dated 15.01.1982 as the resolution dated 31.07.1980 had already been modified by resolution dated 15.01.1982 and ground of resignation to treat break in service had already been deleted. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is well settled principle of law that valuable right accrued to a person cannot be snatched subsequently by issuance of administrative order unless the aforesaid right is not curtailed by legislative act. It is contended by him that resolution dated 18.07.1992 is not applicable to the petitioner because the aforesaid resolution dated 18.07.1992 does not have retrospective effect. Moreover, petitioner joined Bihari Lal Sharsaf High School, Rikhia on 18.1.1979 and the aforesaid school was recognized with effect from 1 -1 -1979. Therefore, resolution Dated 18.7.92 is not applicable in the case of petitioner.