ANUP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The petitioners before this Court were duly appointed as Assistant Teachers in different Primary Schools in the district of Gaya on compassionate ground in the pay scale of Matric untrained. Taking a clue from the decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in Abdus Samad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [CWJC No. 7322 of 2017] and other similar cases, duly affirmed by the learned Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners approached before the Director, Primary Education for identical benefit, as has been extended to Abdus Samad and other similarly situated persons. However, they are afraid with the order contained in Memo No. 1982 dtd. 8/11/2023, whereby the respondent No. 2 negated the claim of other identically situated persons by holding the decision of Abdus Samad as an exception and not treated as a precedent. Hence the present application assailing such observation.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that under the appointment letters of the petitioners, there was a clear stipulation that it was mandatory for them to complete training within three years from the date of appointment and after completing the training, their salary will be increased. Notwithstanding the aforesaid stipulation, the petitioners were sent for training belatedly and the examination of which was done after so many years. In the meanwhile, some of the persons, who were aggrieved with the inaction of the respondent authorities in sending them belatedly for training, they have approached this Court. In identical situation, one Abdus Samad has also approached this Court in CWJC No. 7322 of 2017, where the Court, after taking note of the facts that there is no lapse on the part of the petitioner and on account of dilly-dally and lapse of the respondents, he was not sent for in service training earlier, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Maitric trained scale on completion of three years from the date of joining of the petitioner as he cannot be faulted in the matter of non sending the petitioner for service training.