Jharkhand High Court
Miss. Ursula Tirkey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 2 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1386 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 1451 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 1452 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 1453 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 1457 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 1465 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4137 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4138 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4139 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4140 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4141 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4142 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4145 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4154 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4159 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4291 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4354 of 2009
With
W.P.(S) No. 4284 of 2016
With
W.P.(S) No. 6849 of 2017
With
W.P.(S) No. 7631 of 2017
With
W.P.(S) No. 511 of 2018
In W.P.(S). No. 1386 of 2009
1. Miss. Ursula Tirkey
2. Smt. Lalita Tirkey
3. Smt. Cemilla Surin
4. Miss. Clara Grace Tirkey
5. Smt. Louisa Khoya
6. Miss. Pranchisca Kiro ......... Petitioners.
2
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary to the Govt. of
Jharkhand, Human Resources Development Department, Secondary
Education Directorate, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand Human Resources
Development Department, Ranchi
3. District Education Officer, Gumla.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 1451 of 2009
1. Rajnath Singh
2. Theophil Minz
3. Vincent Beng
4. Anand Prakash Ekka
5. Silbester Toppo ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary to the Govt. of
Jharkhand, Human Resources Development, Secondary Education
Directorate, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand Human Resources
Development Department, Ranchi.
3. District Education Officer, Gumla.
.......... Respondents
In W.P.(S). No. 1452 of 2009
1. Rev. Anand Tigga
2. Smt. Terchilla Ekka
3. Mangia Prasad Yadav
4. Haribansh Yadav
5. Nicholas Kujur
6. Herman Lakra
7. Augustus Kerketta
......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary to the Govt. of
Jharkhand, Human Resources Development, Secondary Education
Directorate, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand Human Resources
Development Department, Ranchi.
3. District Education Officer, Gumla.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 1453 of 2009
1. Miss. Poulina Minz
2. Smt. Maria Goretti Bage
3. Smt. Prephulla Kujur
4. Smt. Kumudini Toppo
5. Smt. Shashikala Kindo
......... Petitioners.
3
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary to the Govt. of
Jharkhand, Human Resources Development Department, Secondary
Education Directorate, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand Human Resources
Development Department, Ranchi.
3. District Education Officer, Gumla.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 1457 of 2009
1. Sr. Virginia Tirkey
2. Miss. Celina Kindo
3. Smt. Abha Tirkey
4. Smt. Euphracia Minj
5. Smt. Mariana Kerketta
6. Naresh Mishra
7. Miss. Gemma Ekka
8. Smt. Beronica Sanga
9. Sr. Anupa
......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary to the Govt. of
Jharkhand, Human Resources Development Department, Secondary
Education Directorate, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand Human Resources
Development Department, Ranchi.
3. District Education Officer, Gumla.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 1465 of 2009
1. Yogendra Prasad
2. Jyoti Prakash Toppo
3. Smt. Khusmaren Minz
4. Satten Toppo
5. Kaushal Kishore Singh
6. Mangal Das Khalkho
......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary to the Govt. of
Jharkhand, Human Resources Development Department, Secondary
Education Directorate, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand Human Resources
Development Department, Ranchi.
3. District Education Officer, Gumla.
.......... Respondents.
4
In W.P.(S). No. 4137 of 2009
1. Bimal Tigga
2. Kalicharan Prasad
3. Prabhu Nath Tiwari
4. Sudhir Lakra ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Simdega
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4138 of 2009
1. Br. Burkmans Toppo
2. Shyam Sundar Sahu
3. Balaram Sahu
4. Simon Lugun
5. Shri Santu Ohdar
6. Maheshwar Kumar Singh
7. Shri Dominique Kerketta
8. Jakrias Jojo
9. Shri Markus Lugun ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Simdega
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4139 of 2009
1. Basil Dundung
2. Lawrentus Bage
3. Peter Lakra
4. Nirmala Gulab Khess
5. John Ekka
6. Patras Dundung ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Gumla
.......... Respondents.
5
In W.P.(S). No. 4140 of 2009
1. Fr. Anand Erget
2. Satyanarayan Prasad
3. Hilarius Kullu
4. Sarojini Toppo
5. Ruben Soreng
6. Albinus Kullu
7. Felix Kerketta
8. Fabian Kiro
9. Phulgence Lakra
10.Fr. Phelikus Suman Lakra
......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Simdega
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4141 of 2009
1. Marcus Bilung
2. Jeetnath Nag
3. Anselam Surin
4. Pushpa Horo
5. Sunit Kandulna
6. Pulkeria Surin
7. Lily Dang
8. Joachim Budding
9. Lawrence Dang
10.Benedict Dang
11.Herman Paul Tete ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Simdega
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4142 of 2009
----------
1. Michael Toppo
2. Johan Kujur
3. Fr. William Lakra ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Gumla
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4145 of 2009
1. Sushil Kumar Guriya
2. Tauhid Ansari
3. Sushma Topno
4. Saroj Kumar
5. Manonit Topno
6. Chamu Sahu
7. Emmanuel Minz
8. Milan Bhengra
9. Hardugan Baje ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Gumla
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4154 of 2009
1. Sr. Mary Jacita Kujur
2. Marcus Lugun
3. Madan Mohan Singh
4. Ethelvida Minz
5. Choutha Sahu
6. Paulina Minz
7. Sr. Priscilla Toppo
8. John Marcus Lugun @ Pam Lugun
9. Helena Bage
....... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Simdega.
........ Respondents
In W.P.(S). No. 4159 of 2009
1. Teresa Rosolia Dungdung
2. Yacub Baa
3. Victoria Lakra
4. Sushila Grace Tigga
5. Tarcilla Kullu
6. Sr. Nirmala Stella Lakra @ Sr. Nirmala
......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Gumla.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4291 of 2009
----------
1. Sr. Cecelia Soreng
2. Smt. Maxima Kiro
3. Smt. Mukta Cecelia Kerketta
4. Smt. Bilan Topno
5. Sr. Angela Toppo
6. Teresa Dungdung ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Simdega.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4354 of 2009
----------
1. Fr. Erik Josef Kullu
2. Shobha Badaik
3. Rajendra Kumar Ranjan
4. Kiran Hembrom
5. Ram Prasad Ohdar
6. Martin Topno
7. Lucas Hembrom
8. Katrina Surin ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. District Education Officer, Simdega.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 4284 of 2016
1. Shrawan Kumar Pathak
2. Rabindra Prasad Chaurasia
3. Rajiv Ranjan Singh
4. John M. Baa
5. Silbanus Toppo ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary to the Govt. of
Jharkhand, Human Resources Development Department, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand Human Resources
Development Department, Ranchi
3. The District Education Officer, Ranchi.
4. The Secretary/ Headmaster, St. Joseph's High School, Kanke, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 6849 of 2017
1. Bachchu Prasad
2. Sultan Ahmed
3. Lawrence Silas Hemrom
4. Anil Mundu
5. Sudha Rani Michiyari
6. Md. Iqbal
7. Hem Kumari Nag
8. Bela Tirkey
9. Shiv Narayan Ohdar
10.Ariel Demta
11.Malti Devi
12.Usha Lakra
13.Suchita Pushpa Tirkey
14.Jyotsana Barobhaiya
15.Juel Tirkey
16.Sanju Anubha Khalko
17.Manila Tirkey
18.Ajita Sosan Demta
19.Sonia Shabnam Bara
20.Kumud Kumar Jha
21.Onil Talan
22.Sandeep Kumar Nag
23.Sushil Sanga
24.Baji Ram Mahto ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, School Education
and Literacy Department, Ranchi.
4. District Education Officer, Ranchi.
5. Secretary, St. Paul's High School, Church Road, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 7631 of 2017
Govind Prasad ......... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary to the Government,
Human Resources Development Department, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. District Education Officer, Dumka.
4. The Secretary, St. Joseph's High School, Guhiajori, Dumka.
.......... Respondents.
In W.P.(S). No. 511 of 2018
1. Mohammad Asad
2. Sultana ......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary to the Govt. of
Jharkhand, Human Resources Development Department, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand Human Resources
Development Department, Ranchi
3. District Education Officer, Hazaribagh.
.......... Respondents.
-----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
For the Petitioners : M/s. Amit Kr. Das, Bhanu Kumar,
K.S. Nanda, Navneet Toppo, Bharti Kumari,
Kanishka Deo, Zafar Alam, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA
Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I
Mr. Praveen Akhouri, SC (M)-I
Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II
Mr. O.P. Tiwari, GP-III
Mr. M.K. Roy, GA-I
Mr. J.F. Toppo, GA-V
Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV
M/s. Chaitali C. Sinha, Mohini Gupta, Moushmi
Chatterjee, Amit Raj Kisku, Sudhanshu Kr. Singh,
Kunal Chandra Suman, Chandan Tiwari, Vineet
Prakash, Associate Counsels
C.A.V. ON 06.02.2023 Pronounced on 02.05.2023
Dr. S.N. Pathak, J The issues involved in all these writ petitions are same, similar and
identical and as such they have been tagged and heard together on various
dates and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have jointly prayed for
quashment of order dated 18.08.2008, passed by the Director, Secondary
Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide memo No. 2162, whereby and
whereunder, it has been informed that employees of Minority Aided
Secondary Schools shall not be entitled for interim allowance and education
allowance and accordingly, District Education Officers of different districts
of the State have been directed to get the statement of salary prepared
excluding the interim allowance as well as Education Allowance.
Further prayer has been made to release the arrears of interim
allowance and education allowance to the petitioners, which is due since
March, 2009.
3. Apart from the common prayers as made above, individual
petitioners have made additional prayers, which are as follows:
In W.P.(S). No. 1386 of 2009 & W.P.(S). No. 1451 of 2009;
W.P.(S). No. 1452 of 2009; W.P.(S). No. 1453 of 2009; W.P.(S). No. 1457
of 2009; & W.P.(S). No. 1465 of 2009 prayer has also been made for
quashing the order dated 12.03.2011, issued by respondent no. 3 vide letter
No. 247, whereby the Secretary/ Headmaster of Minority High School of
Gumla district has been directed to recover/ adjust the excess amount paid
to the petitioners in the light of fixation of pay after adding interim relief
and teaching allowance.
In W.P.(S). No. 4140 of 2009, W.P.(S). No. 4142 of 2009;
W.P.(S). No. 4145 of 2009; & W.P.(S). No. 4291 of 2009 Petitioners in
these writ petitions have prayed for quashing the letter No. 763 dated
06.03.2009 (in W.P.S. No. 4140 of 2009); letter No. 599 dated 21.02.2009
(in W.P.S. No. 4142 of 2009); and letter No. 2408 dated 04.08.2009 (in
W.P.S. No. 4291 of 2009, issued by the respondents, whereby entire
documents regarding fixation of pay-scale of petitioners have been returned
to District Education Officer, Gumla with a direction to prepare their salary
in accordance with letter No. 2162 dated 18.08.2008.
In W.P.(S). No. 6849 of 2017 prayer has also been made for
quashing the resolution No. 2315 dated 20.08.2007 and resolution No. 2728
dated 26.09.2007 and thereafter, extend the benefits accrued to the
petitioner, in accordance with law. Petitioner has further prayed for
quashing the resolution No. 2956 dated 22.09.2009
In W.P.(S). No. 511 of 2018 prayer has also been made for
quashing the resolution No. 2315 dated 20.08.2007 and resolution No. 2956
dated 22.09.2009 and thereafter, extend the benefits accrued to the
petitioner, in accordance with law.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
4. In W.P.S. No. 4284 of 2017: This case has been remitted back by
the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 21.02.2022,
passed in L.P.A. No.35 of 2018, for fresh adjudication. The relevant
portion of the said judgment reads as under:
"12. We have examined the order passed by the writ Court and
are satisfied that there is no consideration by the learned writ
Court as regards various circulars, notifications and orders on
which the writ petitioners placed reliance. More importantly,
the State of Jharkhand was not afforded an opportunity to file a
counter-affidavit and, therefore, the order passed by the writ
Court is kind of ex parte order which even in exceptional
circumstances the writ Court should not do
13. For the aforesaid reasons, order dated 21st April 2017
passed in WP(S) No.4284 of 2016 is set-aside. The matter is
remitted back to the writ Court for fresh adjudication on merits
after affording opportunity of hearing by calling counter-
affidavit from the State of Jharkhand
14. Registry shall post the matter before Hon'ble Jurisdictional
Court."
COMMON FACTS IN ALL THESE WRIT PETITIONS:
5. According to petitioners, the petitioners are employees of
respective Government aided minority institutions, whose salaries are to be
paid in form of grant-in-aid. Thereafter, vide resolution dated 15.06.1978,
the State Government decided to pay salary of teacher and non-teaching
employees of minority schools. Subsequently, vide memo No. 2526 dated
11.07.1979, the State Govt. decided to pay salary to employees of the aided
schools at the same rate as has been granted to the Teachers of Government
Schools. Thereafter, the government extended benefits of provident fund
and family pension to employees of minority school vide resolution No.
1775 dated 30.08.1980 and extended the benefits of similar pay-scale,
allowance and other monetary benefits vide resolution No. 179 dated
22.12.1981 to recognized minority secondary schools. The State
Government by the order of Governor framed and issued resolution bearing
Resolution No. 237 dated 20.02.1990, issued by the Principal Secretary,
Human Resources Department, by which all facilities and benefits of all
allowances to employees of recognized minority schools were extended at
par with the employees of other government schools. Thereafter, from time
to time, pay-scale of employees of minority schools including that of
petitioners were revised with revision of pay-scale of employees of
government schools.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that upon recommendation
of Fitment Committee, the pay-scale of employees of State Government
were revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and monetary benefits were given w.e.f.
01.04.1997 but the same was first denied to the petitioners. Later on, vide
memo No.2315 dated 20.08.2007, the petitioners became entitled to said
revision w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.4.2007, when the
State Govt. extended the same on the basis of recommendation of Fitment
Committee. Thereafter, on the basis of said resolution, the respondent No. 2
vide letter dated No. 2728 dated 26.09.2007 had issued guidelines to all
Deputy Directors and District Education Officers to extend the said benefits
to all employees of minority schools. In response to the same, vide letter
No. 2348, the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand,
issued guidelines to DEOs mentioning that the employees of minority
schools are entitled to get all allowance including interim and education
allowances. Thereafter, fixation of pay-scale of petitioners were done and
benefits were extended to petitioners who were paid arrears of salary w.e.f.
1.4.2007 till February, 2009. However, vide impugned letter dated
18.08.2008, the Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand
informed the District Education Officer, Ranchi that employees of minority
schools are not entitled to get interim allowance and education allowance
and further directed the DEO, Ranchi to prepare statement of fixation of
pay-scale of all employees of minority schools excluding interim and
education allowance. Accordingly, District Education Officer, Gumla
directed management of respective Institutions to prepare fresh statement of
salary. It is the specific case of the petitioners that upon representation, the
Hon'ble Finance Minister vide memo No. 47 dated 15.09.2008, informed
the Secretary, HRD Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi that it has been decided
to fix the pay of teachers of minority schools after adding interim allowance
and education allowance.
7. In nutshell, the main grievance of all the writ petitioners is that
the respondent-authorities have stopped payment of interim allowance and
education allowance w.e.f. March, 2009. When inspite of several
representations filed by the petitioners, the respondents failed to take any
action, they have been constrained to knock the door of this Court for the
relief prayed for in the respective writ petitions.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
8. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Mr. Navneet
Toppo, Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsels appearing on behalf of
petitioners in respective writ petitions.
9. Learned counsel jointly argued that the action of respondent-
authorities is wholly, arbitrary and bad in law. Learned counsel further
submits that the respondents have no authority to deprive the petitioners of
the benefits, which has been allowed in their favour by the State
Government and which have already been extended to the petitioners w.e.f.
1.4.2007 till February, 2009. Learned counsel further argues that the
benefits of revision of pay-scale in the 6th Pay Revision including benefits
of interim allowance and education allowances have already been extended
to employees of Minority Aided Primary School. Learned counsel further
argues that respondents are duty bound to follow their own policy decisions
issued from time to time and deviation from the same amounts to an act of
malice and bias in law. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents
are also bound to implement the government's resolution bearing No. 237
dated 20.02.1990, which has been accepted/ adopted by the State of
Jharkhand, Human Resources Development Department, after bifurcation
of the State of Bihar. Learned counsel further argues that the Director,
Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi has no jurisdiction to issue
direction not to give the benefits of teaching allowance and interim relief in
fixation of pay of teaching and non-teaching staff of Minority Schools
contrary to the Government's decision. Learned counsel further argues that
petitioners are also discharging the same and similar duties like the teaching
and non-teaching staff of Nationalized Schools and hence, they are also
entitled for payment of teaching allowance and interim relief as the same
are being paid to the teaching/ non-teaching staff of Nationalized Schools.
Learned counsel further argues that action of the respondents against these
petitioners debarring them from the benefits which has been extended to the
teaching and non-teaching staff of Elementary Minority Schools and also
the Nationalized Schools, who are also discharging the same and similar
duties is unsustainable. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents
cannot be allowed to adopt discriminatory policy of pick and choose in the
matter of payment of teaching allowance and interim relief and as such, the
same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS - STATE
10. Per contra counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently
opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and
submitted that recommendation of 5th PRC was implemented by the State
Govt. vide resolution dated 20.08.2007, wherein it was mentioned that
teachers and non-teaching staff of Minority Secondary Schools shall be
allowed Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Medical Allowance
and City Compensatory Allowance. In the matter of pay-fixation, whether
interim relief and teaching allowance should be included in the pay-fixation
or not, advice of Finance Department was sought. The Finance Department
had advised that interim relief and teaching allowance should not be
included in pay-fixation of teachers and non-teaching staff of Minority
Schools. The reasons for such advice of the Finance Department is based on
letter No. 690 dated 10.11.2000 issued under the signature of Special
Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, whereby it was made clear that
teaching allowance and interim relief were not payable to teachers and non-
teaching staff of minority schools. Since, these two allowances were not
admissible to them, so interim relief and teaching allowance were not be
included in the pay-fixation. Learned counsel further argues that on the
basis of advice given by the Finance Department, Director (Secondary
Education), Jharkhand, Ranchi issued letter dated 18.08.2008, whereby it
was directed not to include interim relief and teaching allowance in the pay-
fixation of the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority schools in the
revised scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Learned counsel further argues that vide
resolution No. 893 dated 08.11.1990, regarding implementation of 4 th PRC
of Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of Minority School only Dearness
Allowance, HRD, CCA, Medical Allowances besides salary were allowed.
Interim relief and teaching allowance were not allowed to them. So, there is
no question of inclusion of interim relief and teaching allowance in the Pay
Fixation in 5th PRC. It was further argued by learned counsel for the
respondent-State that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of
delay and laches. The cause of action arose in the year 2007 but after the
order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the year 2011, they have
approached this Court after lapse of five years. Learned counsel placing
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P.
Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347, submits
that on the point of maintainability itself the writ petition is fit to be
dismissed.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
12. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the
parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is
of the considered view that the cases of the petitioners need consideration
in view of the settled principle of law and in view of the fact that issue
involved in these batch of matters is now no more res-integra as the same
has already been taken into consideration and decided by the Hon'ble
Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2897 of 2005 and the same was taken
into consideration by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 5419 of 2014.
13. Before delving deep into the matter, it would be apposite to go
through the several resolutions issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar as
well as by the State of Jharkhand regarding pay parity between the two
sets of teachers i.e. government nationalized high school and government
recognized added minority high school.
14. From perusal of Clause-3 of Resolution dated 22.12.1981 it is
crystal clear that government decided to maintain complete parity between
the two sets of teachers. Clause-3 is reads as under:
3- jkT; ljdkj us fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd jktdh; ladYi la[;k&2270
fnukad 30-10-80 ¼izfrfyfi layXu½ }kjk jktdh;d`r ek/;fed fo|ky; ds
fofHkUu dksfV ds f'k{kdksa ,oa f'k{kdsrj deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, Lohd`r osrueku
ekU;rkizkIr vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky; ds f'k{kdksa ,oa f'k{kdsrj
deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkh fn;k tk;A osru ds vykok mUgsa jktdh;d`r fo|ky;
ds f'k{kdaksa dh Hkkafr eg¡xkbZ HkÙkk ] fpfdRlk HkÙkk] vkokl HkÙkk] 'kgjh HkÙkk
,oa foÙk foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k 5205] fn0 & 24-5-80 }kjk Lohd`r
vUrfje lgk;rk ns; gksxkA
Further, vide resolution dated 18.12.1989, it was decided that
headmasters of middle school and teachers of high school and headmaster
of +2 school shall be entitled to payment of teaching allowance @ Rs.100/-
per month and headmasters of high school and +2 school shall be entitled
for payment of teaching allowance @ Rs.150 per month from 01.03.1989.
Relevant clause of the said resolution reads as under:
17- Lkjdkj us izkFkfed fo|ky; ds f'k{kd ] fefMy Ldwyksa ds
iz/kkuk/;kidksa rFkk ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa ¼Lukrd izf'kf{kr ,oa
LukrdksÙkj½ ,oa Iyl &2 fo|ky;ksa ds izk/;kidksa dks 100 :0 izfrekg dh
nj ls f'k{k.k HkÙkk Lohd`r djus dk Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k gSA ek/;fed
fo|ky;ksa ds iz/kkuk/;kid rFkk Iyl 2 fo|ky;ksa ds izkpk;ksZa dks 150 #0
izfrekg dh nj ls fo'ks"k HkÙkk Hkqxrku gksxkA bu HkÙkksa dk Hkqxrku 1 ekpZ]
1989 ls gksxkA
Further vide resolution dated 20.02.1990, it was decided to extend
all the facilities to the teaching and non-teaching staff of government
recognized aided minority schools at par with the government nationalized
schools.
Thereafter, in the year 1995, vide resolution dated 25.08.1995, the
State Government decided to grant interim relief @ Rs.100/- per month
w.e.f. 01.04.1994 to its employees. The relevant portion of the said
resolution reads as under:
1- fofHkUu lsok la?kksa ls izkIr vkosnuksa ds Øe esa vUrfje Lohd`r djus dk
iz'u jkT; ljdkj ds fopkjk/khu FkkA jkT; ljdkj us fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd
jkT; ds lsfooxZ dk fnukad 1-4-94 ds izHkko ls 100-00 ¼,d lkS :Ik;k½
vUrfje jkgr Lohd`r fd;k tk;A
In the year 1998, the State of Bihar vide resolution dated
07.08.1998, decided to grant interim relief w.e.f. 01.04.1998 @ 10% of
basic pay minimum Rs.100/- per month in light of agreement made between
the State Govt. and Association of Government Employees-cum-Teaching
and Non-Teaching Staff of Nationalized Institutions/ Schools, the relevant
portion of which reads as under:
2- foÙk foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k 4382 fnukad 2-8-97 ds }kjk fcgkj jkT;
vjktif=r deZpkjh egkla?k ds lkFk fnukad 18-5-95 dks gq, le>kSrs ds
vkyksd esa jkT; dfeZ;ksa dks iwoZ ls Lohd`r varfje jkgr ds vfrfjDr 1-4-97
ds izHkko ls ewy osru dk 10 izfr'kr varfje jkgr dh Lohd`fr iznku djus
dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA
Vide resolution dated 20.08.2007, the State Government revised
the pay-scale of teaching and non-teaching staff of government recognized
minority school w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
2- foÙk foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k&660 fnukad 08-02-1999 ds }kjk jkT; ljdkj
ds v/khu dk;Zjr lHkh ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa dks fQxesVa dfeVh dh vuq'kalk ds
vkyksd esa iqjjhf{kr osrueku dh lqfo/kk nh xbZ gSA xSj ljdkjh lgk;rk izkIr
vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky; ds f'k{[email protected]'k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa dks foÙk foHkkx
ds mDr ladYi la[;k&660 fnukad &08-02-1999 ds vkyksd esa iqujhf{kr
osrueku Lohd`r djus dk izLrko fopkjk/khu Fkk ftl ij lE;d fopkjksijkar
jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd bUgsa Hkh ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa dh
Hkkafr fnukad 01-01-1999 ds izHkko ls fuEu:is.k iqujhf{kr osrueku Lohd`r
djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA
Øekad inuke viqujhf{kr osrueku iape Ikqujf{kr osrueku foÙk
iqujf{kr ds vk/kkj ij foHkkx ds ladYi
la[;k&660 fnukad 08-02-
99 ds vkyksd esa izfrLFkk;h
osrueku
iz/kkuk/;kid 3000&[email protected]& 7500&[email protected]&
Lukrd izf'kf{kr 1640&[email protected]& 5500&[email protected]&
Lukrd izf'kf{kr ojh; 2000&[email protected]& 6500&[email protected]&
3 osrueku
fyfid 1200&[email protected]& 4000&[email protected]& ijarq
4 [email protected]& ds ckn
fu;qDr fyfid dk
osrueku :0
3050&[email protected]&gksxkA
vkns'kiky 775&[email protected]& 2550&[email protected]&
In the letter dated 26.09.2007, it was mentioned that the pay of
teaching and non-teaching staff of minority aided schools will be fixed
likewise the teaching and non-teaching staff of nationalized schools.
jkT; ljdkj us jkT; ds xSj ljdkjh ekU;rk izkIr vYila[;d ek/;fed
fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{[email protected]'k{kdsÙkj dfeZ;ksa] dks fQVesUV dfefV ds vuq'kalk ds
vkyksd esa osrueku Lohd`fr dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA
Vide resolution dated 01.12.2008, after adopting the earlier
resolution dated 20.02.1990, the erstwhile State of Bihar has also decided to
add 50% Dearness Allowance in the basic pay for the purpose of making
payment of D.A., HRA, Medical Allowance etc. and the age of retirement
of staff of minority schools has been enhanced from 58 years to 60 years.
iwoZoRkhZ fcgkj jkT; ds ladYi la[;k&[email protected] 1&[email protected]&2315
fnukad & 20-08-2007 ds }kjk jkT; ds xSj&ljdkjh ekU;rk&izkIr
vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa ,oa f'k{kdsÙkj deZpkfj;ksa dks
fnukad 01-04-2007 ds izHkko ls fQVesUV dfeVh ds vuq'kalk ds vkyksd esa
iqujhf{kr osrueku dh Lohd`fr nh x;h gSA
15. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Patna High
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2897 of 2005 and the Court after interpreting
various resolutions and government decisions to maintain complete parity
in the matter of pay-scale and other allowances between the teaching and
non-teaching staff of government nationalized school and government
aided minority schools, vide its order dated 10.05.2011 allowed the said
writ petition directing the respondent-State to resume payments of
teaching allowance and interim relief to petitioners and their like till pay
revision were effected as in the case of other teachers of nationalized
government schools. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is
quoted herein below:
"Thus, two Resolutions clearly show that the Government
decision was to treat both of them at parity and there would be
no discrimination between the two on ground of being
Teachers in a recognised minority school. In my view, this is
consistent with Article-30 (2) of the Constitution which
prohibits any such discrimination. A reference to Annexure-4
would also show that Government was conscious that pending
pay revision, interim relief is made payable. It was specifically
decided that even interim relief would be payable to Teachers
of Government aided minority schools just like other
Government Teachers. All this is being upset on a curious
interpretation of Annexure-6 which is Annexure-A. The stand
of the State in the supplementary counter affidavit is that when
in 1998 (Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit),
State decided to grant interim relief pending pay revision, it
mentions that it would be available to all Government servants
and Teachers as specifically there was no mention of Teachers
of Government aided recognised minority institutions that it
would not apply to them. In my view, that is a perverse reading
of the Government Resolution. As noticed above, the
Government decision consistently was that a parity has to be
maintained between the two classes of Teachers. There is no
decision on record where this parity has been broken or
Government has decided to forget this parity. If this parity is to
be maintained then anything that became due and payable to
Government Teachers of nationalised schools, that would
automatically become payable to these Teachers as well. Thus,
if Teachers of Government aided recognised minority
institutions were to be deprived of the interim relief, that had to
be specifically mentioned, otherwise automatically it would be
carried to all Teachers as well.
Similarly, when we come to Annexure-A, which is Annexure-
6 to the writ petition as well, it nowhere mentions that teaching
allowance and interim relief shall not be paid to Teachers of
Government aided recognised minority institution. In view of
the Government policy, as noted above of maintaining parity, if
these payments were started which were indeed started after
1990 then the circular of 08.11.1990 does not restrict its
payment. Interim relief came to be granted in 1998, 8 years
after this. How could anyone, with a sane mind, state that this
circular of 1990 prohibited grant of interim relief to the
petitioners when interim relief itself was born in 1998. Thus, I
find that the stand of the State is not valid either in law or in
fact. I, therefore, hold and direct that as per the decision of the
Government itself to maintain complete parity in matters of
paying pay scales and payments as between Teachers in
Government nationalised schools and Teachers of Government
aided minority institutions, anything that is paid to the
Teachers of nationalised Government schools, would be
payable to the Government aided recognised minority
institution as well otherwise there would be chance of violation
of Article 30 (2) of the Constitution.
Thus, Annexure-1 and consequently Annexures-2 and 3,
based thereon, cannot be sustained. They are quashed
accordingly. State is directed to resume payments of teaching
allowance and interim relief to the petitioners and their like till
pay revisions were effected as in the case of other Teachers of
nationalised Government schools. There shall be no recovery
from the petitioners and their like."
16. Similar view was taken by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 5419 of
2014 and a specific direction was given by this Court vide order dated
10.03.2015 to the State to consider the cases of the petitioners taking into
consideration the order dated 10.05.2011.
17. From the aforesaid resolution and the interpretation made
thereafter by the Hon'ble Patna High Court as well as by this Court, no
other view can be taken other than what has been decided and this Court is
also of the view that petitioners are entitled for the relief as claimed for.
18. The arguments of learned counsel for the respondent-State that
the writ petition is not maintainable is totally misconceived as the writ
petitioners were continuously seeking remedy and praying for relief with
the respondents and thereafter, approached this Court and as such, it
cannot be said to be a belated claim. Rather, it is recurring cause of action,
so delay does not come in the way.
The further arguments of learned Additional Advocate General
that the order of Hon'ble Patna High Court is in favour of State, is also not
acceptable as the same is very clear in issuance of directions to the State
holding therein that, "I, therefore, hold and direct that as per the decision
of the Government itself to maintain complete parity in matters of paying
pay scales and payments as between Teachers in Government nationalised
schools and Teachers of Government aided minority institutions, anything
that is paid to the Teachers of nationalised Government schools, would be
payable to the Government aided recognised minority institution as well
otherwise there would be chance of violation of Article 30 (2) of the
Constitution". The respondents cannot interpret the order of the Court in
their own way.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners finds
strength from the order of this Court passed in case of Mariyam Tirkey Vs.
State of Jharkhand, reported in 2014 SCC Online Jhar. 15, which was
affirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. The relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment reads as under:
"11. In Resolution No. 237 dated 20th February, 1990, the
teaching/non-teaching staffs working in Non-Government
Recognized Minority Primary/Middle/Secondary Schools are
entitled to House Rent Allowance, Urban Compensatory
Allowance and such other allowances. By virtue of
Resolution No. 68 dated 29.06.1983 (Annexure- 2 to W.P.(S)
No. 512 of 2013) the teachers working in Non-Government
Aided Minority Primary/Middle Schools shall be entitled to
General Provident Fund, Pension (including Family
Pension) and Gratuity like Government employees. In terms
of Resolution No. 237 dated 20th February, 1990 the
teaching/non-teaching staffs working in Non-Government
Aided Minority Primary/Middle Schools are given pay parity
including Dearness Allowance, Medical Allowance, House
Rent Allowance, Urban Compensatory Allowance etc. We are
of the view that when the pay parity including all allowances
are given to teaching/non-teaching staff, they cannot be
denied the benefit of leave encashment.
12. In W.P.(S) No. 522 of 2002, the learned Single Judge
proceeded under the footing that Resolution No. 237 dated
20thFebruary, 1990 is related only to in service benefits but
did not include retirement benefits. On that footing, the
learned Single Judge held that the order or decision as
circulated vide letter No. 23/B-1 42/82-Si dated 23rd June,
1983 has not been superseded and therefore the
teaching/non-teaching staffs employed in Non-Government
Aided Minority Primary/Middle Schools cannot seek for
leave encashment.
It is also to be taken note that till date State Government has not
taken any decision not to extend the benefits of interim relief to the teachers
of government aided minority schools.
19. The contention of Mr. Jai Prakash, learned AAG-IA that the
petitioners are entitled for interim relief till the date of pay-revision is also
not acceptable. Further, from counter-affidavit, it appears that a specific
plea has been taken that since teaching allowance and interim relief are not
mentioned in the resolution of 1990 therefore, the petitioners are not
entitled for the said benefits. The said plea is also without any basis. This
Hon'ble Court in case while disposing of one of the present batch of cases
i.e. W.P.(S). No. 4284 of 2016 has clearly held as under:
"7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival
submissions of the parties, in my view the petitioners are
entitled for the benefits prayed for in the instant writ
application i.e. for re-fixation of their salary in the revised
pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 after quantifying the amount of
interim relief and teaching allowance in view of letter No.
2728 dated 26.09.2007. The Hon'ble Patna High Court in
C.W.J.C.No.2897/2005 clearly observed:
" I, therefore, hold and direct that as per the
decision of the Government itself to maintain
complete parity in matters of paying pay scales
and payments as between Teachers in
Government Nationalized Schools and Teachers
of Government aided minority institutions,
anything that is paid to the Teachers of
Nationalized Government Schools, would be
payable to the Government aided recognized
minority institution as well otherwise there
would be chance of violation of Article 30(2) of
the Constitution."
8. It is an admitted fact that the Government has not come
out with a policy to discriminate between teachers of
nationalized Government Schools and Teachers of
Government aided minority schools in matters of payment
where payment is to be made from Government aid. In that
view of the matter, when a teacher in a Govt. nationalized
school or a Teacher in a Government aided minority
educational institution having same eligibility/ criteria and
the same qualification they have to be treated similarly
Article 30(2) of the Constitution prohibits any such
discrimination and thus discrimination would be violation of
the aforesaid provision of the Constitution as there is no
decision on record where parity has been broken or Govt.
has decided to forget this parity. Thus if teachers of Govt.
aided recognized minority institutions were to be deprived of
the interim relief, that had to be specifically mentioned,
otherwise automatically it would be carried to all Teachers
as well."
20. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and
Govt. circulars, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners are
entitled for re-fixation of their salary in the revised pay scales w.e.f.
01.01.1996 after quantifying the amount of interim relief and teaching
allowance in view of letter No. 2728 dated 26.09.2007. The respondents
are directed to make the entire payments with all consequential benefits to
the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
21. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 18.08.2008 passed by the
Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide memo
No. 2162 being not tenable in the eyes of law, is hereby quashed and set
aside. Further the consequential orders of recovery i.e.
Order dated 12.03.2011 impugned in W.P.(S). No. 1386 of 2009;
W.P.(S). No. 1451 of 2009; W.P.(S). No. 1452 of 2009; W.P.(S). No. 1453
of 2009; W.P.(S). No. 1457 of 2009; & W.P.(S). No. 1465 of 2009
The letter No. 763 dated 06.03.2009 (in W.P.S. No. 4140 of
2009); letter No. 599 dated 21.02.2009 (in W.P.S. No. 4142 of 2009); and
letter No. 2408 dated 04.08.2009 (in W.P.S. No. 4291 of 2009)
Resolution No. 2315 dated 20.08.2007, resolution No. 2728 dated
26.09.2007 and resolution No. 2956 dated 22.09.2009 in W.P.(S). No. 6849
of 2017 and W.P.(S). No. 511 of 2018,
are also hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are
directed to refund the amount, if already recovered from the petitioners.
22. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ
petitions stand allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Kunal/-
