NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

(2.) The petitioners have moved the Court for the following reliefs:

(3.) The petitioners, who were trained teachers were promoted as Headmaster. Pursuant to the implementation of the 6th Pay Revision Recommendation, though were granted one increment, later on, a controversy was raised with regard to one Hemant Kumar, the Headmaster of Middle School, Turki Bazar, Minapur and upon him being heard, a general order was passed that all such Headmasters, who had been given increment, due to the same being wrong, their pay be re-fixed and recovery be made of the amount paid. Learned counsel submitted that upon consideration by the authorities themselves, the petitioners had been given the benefit, and even if, any benefit which was given was required to be withdrawn, principles of natural justice required that at least a show cause/ notice be given to the petitioners so that they could defend the payment made to them. He submitted that admittedly only one Hemant Kumar was noticed and heard, who is not a petitioner in the present writ application. It was further submitted that even the order of recovery without any notice is illegal and requires to be interfered with. Learned counsel submitted that on merits, they are ready for re-fixation of their pay but their claim should be considered in terms of the 1993 Rules which stipulates that if they are working in Matric Trained Scale and have the qualification of Graduate Trained teacher then after eight years, they would be entitled to get the pay scale of Headmaster. It was submitted that the petitioners having been appointed in the year 1994 and there also being an order passed by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Nath Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported as 2009 (3) PLJR 384, that prior to framing of fresh Rules, cases of all persons, who became eligible in terms of the 1993 Rules, had to be considered. It was submitted that though the new Rules came in the year 2011, but the case of the petitioners, which was required to be considered as per the 1993 Rules, was not done. Learned counsel submitted that the authorities may comply with such direction and they shall also cooperate with the authorities in the said exercise.