Suraj Prasad Saw v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.536 of 2018 ====================================================== Anita Kumari, Wife of Bharat Bhusan, resident of Mohalla- Govindpur, P.S.- Govindpur, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, H.R.D. Department, Budh Marg, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Nawada.
4. The Dy. Development Commissioner, Nawada.
5. The District Superintendent of Education.
6. The Block Development Officer, Govindpur, Nawada.
7. The Block Education Officer, Govindpur, Nawada.
8. The Principal, Project Kanya Inter School, Govindpur, Nawada. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 618 of 2018 ====================================================== Shushila Devi Wife of Late Parmeshwar Singh Resident of Village - Gobindpur, P.S. - Gobindpur, District - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, H.R.D. Department, Budha Marg, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Nawada.
4. The Dy. Development Commissioner, Nawada.
5. The District Education Officer, Nawada.
6. The Block Development Officer, Govindpur, Nawada.
7. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nawada.
8. The Block Education Officer, Govindpur, Nawada.
9. The Principal, Project Kanya Inter School, Govindpur, Nawada. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 595 of 2018 ====================================================== Suraj Prasad Saw Son of late Kisun Saw Resident of Mohalla- Gobindpur, P.S.- Gobindpur, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, H.R.D. Department, Budh Marg, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.536 of 2018(2) dt.16-02-2018 2/3
3. The District Magisrate, Nawada.
4. The Dy. Development Commissioner, Nawada.
5. The District Superintendent of Education
6. The Block Development Officer, Govindpur, Nawada.
7. The Block Education Officer, Govindpur, Nawada.
8. The Principal , Project Kanya Inter School, Govindpur, Nawada. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Narendra Kumar AC to GP20 Mr. Madhaw Pd. Yadav, GP-23 Mr. S.K.Ranjan, Ac to GP-17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 16-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State Government has taken a decision, contained in Annexure-1 for payment of arrears in five instalments. He submits that in other schools payment of arrears have been made but in the case of the schools in question the respondents have not made payment of the arrears.
In view of the above, the writ applications are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take final decision according to their own decision dated 24th June, 2008, contained in Annexure-1 and if it is found that the petitionersinstitution is covered by the aforesaid decision and similarly circumstances teachers and non-teaching employees of the other
Patna High Court CWJC No.536 of 2018(2) dt.16-02-2018 3/3 schools have been considered and they have been paid arrears with effect from 1989, similar benefit should be extended to the petitioners on uniform basis and not to make pick and choose method in the matter of grant of arrears of salary in terms of the decision dated 24th June, 2008.
Final decision in this regard must be taken by the respondent No. 2 within a period of four months from today and consequential benefits must reach to the petitioners within the time indicated hereinabove.
Respondents are required to strictly adhere to their own litigation policy and to grant similar benefit to all similarly circumstanced teaching and non-teaching employees of the Project schools.
With the aforesaid, the writ petitions stand disposed of. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/- U