LAL BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) THE claim in this writ application is for arrears of salary as Panchayat Teacher. The petitioners preferred an application before the Appellate Authority which commenced hearing of the same and did so till 30.12.2008. Specific statement has been made in Para 22 of the writ application that on 12.1.2009 the Appellate Authority has disposed off the matter that he had no jurisdiction to decide the issues of salary. The submission is that the certified copy is still not being made available and the petitioners have had to seek the reasons under the Right to information Act, which is still elusive. Counsel for the State submits that there is no order of Appellate Authority refusing to exercise jurisdiction and therefore the writ application is premature. He next submits that under the Rules creating the Appellate Authority it does not appear that he has been given power to hear issues of salary.

(3.) THE Rules creating the Appellate Authority in 2008, by amendment of the earlier rules of 2006, states that his jurisdiction shall be with regard to "matters related to appointment". If the rule makers wanted it to be confined strictly to the issue of appointment only it would have confined the language to the use of the word 'appointment ' and 'not matters related to appointment '. It is apparent that the word 'appointment ' has been used as a generic term and shall take within its ambit all matters connected and consequential to appointment. Salary is an entitlement dependent and consequent upon appointment. This Court has no hesitation in holding that salary comes within the ambit of the generic term appointment or in any event, matters relating to appointment. This Court therefore holds that the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction to hear issues with regard to salary also.