Abhishek Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 3773 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12662 of 2021
     ======================================================

1. Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Son of Naresh Prasad Sharma Resident of Naresh Savitri Bhawan, New Maika Colony, P.S. - Digha, District- Patna.

2. Devendra Kumar Son of Hardwar Ram Resident of Near Government Hand Pump, Lal Bagh Mahendrum, P.S. - Pirbahore, District- Patna.

3. Manik Raj Ambedkar Son of Nand Kishore Chaudhary Resident of Shamsher Nagar, P.S. Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad.

4. Bhagwat Kumar Paswan Son of Bimal Paswan Resident of Purkho Patti, P.S.

- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga.

5. Sharvan Kumar Son of Kapil Saw Resident of Sarthua, Top, P.S. -

Shahjahanpur, District- Patna.

6. Mukesh Kumar Son of Brij Nandan Prasad Resident of Jaitipur Paithana, Islampur, P.S. - Islampur, District- Nalanda.

7. Rajnish Kumar Sinha Son of Banke Bihari Sinha Resident of Village -

Paingri, P.O. - Paingri, P.S. - Warsaliganj, District- Nawada.

8. Ravi Kumar Sharma Son of Vijay Kumar Sharma Resident of East Shivaji Chowk, Bekapur, P.S. Kotwali, District- Munger.

9. Amit Kumar Verma Son of Shankar Prasad Resident of C/o Ashok Singh, Makchund Toli, P.O. Chutiya, P.S. - Chutiya, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).

10. Shivanand Tiwary Son of Mukti Nath Tiwary Resident of Saidpura, P.S. -

Goriyakothi, District- Siwan.

11. Janki Kumari Wife of Ravi Kumar Resident of Dariyapur, Murarpur, P.S. -

Kadamkuan, District - Patna.

12. Sameer Prasad Son of Chhatrapati Prasad Resident of Village and P.O. -

Salimpur, P.S. - Pirpanti, District- Bhagalpur.

13. Sanjeevan Kumar Son of Shambhu Prasad Singh Resident of Adarsh Tola, Airport Bindwara, P.S. - Kasim Bazar, District- Munger.

14. Sunil Kumar Son of Deep Narayan Mandal Resident of Ward No. 11, Kumiyahi, Triveniganj, P.S. - Triveniganj, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Finance Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

6. The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

7. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Shiksha Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

Bhawan, Rastrabhasha Parishad, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna - 800004.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10918 of 2022 ======================================================

1. Abhishek Kumar Son of Rana Uday Singh, Resident of Village- Tira, P.O-

Chero, P.S.- Harnaut, District- Nalanda.

2. Shyam Jee Bharti Son of Atish Prasad Singh, Resident of At and P.O.-

Haripur, P.S.- Banka, District- Banka, PIN- 813102

3. Ravindra Kumar Son of Rajeshwar Sharma, Resident of Village- Kalyanpur, P.O- Papura Kala, P.S.- Paliganj, District- Patna.

4. Diwakar Kumar Son of Lal Bihari Ram, Resident of Ward No. 17, P.O.-

Piro, P.S.- Piro, District- Bhojpur.

5. Prabhash Bharti Son of Umesh Das Resident of 55, Naya Tola, Parwati, P.O.- Naya Bazar, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur.

6. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Son of Lala Shiv Shankar Prasad, Resident of Gol Bagicha, P.O.- R.S. Gaya, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Gaya.

7. Shailesh Kumar Son of Hargun Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Jamtara Panchwati Nagar, P.O.- Dumri, P.S.- Dumri, District- Giridih, Jharkhand.

8. Keshav Prasad Son of Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Lashkariganj, Ward No. 18, P.O.- Sasaram, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas.

9. Satayam Kumar Singh Son of Abhay Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-

Jemhara, P.O.- Lakshami Girdhar, P.S.- Rupauli, District- Purnia.

10. Santosh Kumar Mishra Son of Kirti Narayan Mishra, Resident of Village and P.O.- Pawai, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Aurangabad.

11. Manish Kumar Manu Son of Nand Kishor Singh, Resident of Village-

Amari, P.O- Amari Kukrun, P.S.- Dhamdaha, District- Purnea.

12. Nagendra Kumar Son of Ram Ishwar Thakur, Resident of Adarsh Nagar, Road No. 8, New Dashratha, P.O.- Anishabad, P.S.- Beur, District- Patna.

13. Pritam Kumar Choudhary Son of Subodh Prasad Choudhary, Resident of Rang Manch, P.O.- Barahat, P.S.- Barahat, District- Banka.

14. Dibakar Sinha Son of Sasanka Sekhar Sinha, Resident of Binodpur, P.O.-

Katihar, P.S.- Katihar, District- Katihar.

15. Shyam Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Binodpur, P.O.-

Katihar, P.S.- Katihar, District- Katihar.

16. Raman Jha Son of Jananand Jha, Resident of Ward No. 10, Village- Haripur, P.O.- Kaluahi, P.S.- Kaluahi, District- Madhubani.

17. Uday Kumar Bharti Son of Vishwanath Mandal, Resident of Ward No. 16, Koat Bazar, P.O.- Sitamarhi, P.S.- Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.

18. Pramod Kumar Son of Bindeshwar Prasad Azad, Resident of Village-

Bhairopatti, P.O.- Milkychak, P.S.- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga.

19. Ajit Kumar Son of Janardan Poddar, Resident of Village and P.O.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

20. Amit Kumar Son of Awadh Narayan Mandal, Resident of Village and P.O-

Andauli, P.S.- Kishanpur, District- Supaul.

21. Sunita Kumari Wife of Om Prakash, Resident of Rajauli Tola Takiya, P.O and P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada.

22. Arun Kumar Son of Bindeshwar Mehra, Resident of MIG-26, Housing Board Colony, P.O.- Laheriasarai, P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga.

23. Arvind Kumar Son of Umesh Prasad, Resident of Punjabi Colony, Gali No. 1, Anand Vihar, P.O.- Samastipur, P.S.- Samastipur, District- Samastipur.

24. Dilip Kumar Son of Balmiki Prasad Singh, Resident of Village and P.O.-

Singariawan, P.S.- Shahjahanpur, District- Patna.

25. Ram Niwas Choudhary Son of Pulakdhari Choudhary, Resident of Ward No. 15, Cheriya Bariyarpur, P.O.- Siripur, P.S.- Cheriya Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai.

26. Ram Niwash Kumar Son of Nawal Kishor Singh, Resident of Village-

Kumbhi, P.O.- Samay, P.S.- Warisaliganj, District- Nawada.

27. Rahul Rathor Son of Shivji Singh, Resident of Village and P.O.-

Mubarakpur, P.S.- Phulwariya Tajpur, District- Saran.

28. Kumar Amarnath Prasad Son of Ramchandra Prasad, Resident of Village-

Dharmdiha, P.O.- Dharmdiha,, P.S.- Dharmdiha, District- Madhubani.

29. Yashwindra Singh Son of Sardar Tarkeshwar Singh, Resident of State Bank of India, Ashram Tola, P.O.- Guru Bazar, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar.

30. Chandrahas Kumar Bharti Son of Baleshwar Roy, Resident of Village and P.O.-

Kadwabasa Balia, P.S.- Bhawanipur, District- Purnea.

31. Avinash Kumar Son of Suresh Kewat, Resident of Village and P.O.- Gagaur, P.S.-

Korma, District- Sheikhpura.

32. Anand Bhushan Son of Shankar Jha, Resident of Village- Shivpuri, P.O.- Araria, P.S.- Araria, District- Araria.

33. Pawan Kumar Son of Babulal Mahtha, Resident of Village- Jogna, P.O.- Phuldih, P.S.- Rupow, District- Nawada.

34. Shubhendu Kumar Son of Sunil Kant Vishwas, Resident of Sarsaula Khurd, P.O.

and P.S.- Sheohar, District- Sheohar.

35. Bhagwan Ram Son of Shri Shivajee Ram, Resident of Kiratpur, Raja Ram (Netar), P.O. and P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali (Bihar), PIN- 844114.

36. Avishesha Kumar Chaudhary Son of Ram Naresh Chaudhary, Resident of At and P.O- Pataili, Tola, Dhamua, Ward No. 07, P.S.- Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur, PIN- 848132 (Bihar)

37. Bablu Thakur Son of Upendra Thakur, Resident of Village- Saini Tola, P.O. and P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa.

38. Jyoti Rani Gupta Wife of Umesh Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village and P.O.-

Subhasnagar, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger.

... ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Finance Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

6. The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

7. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Shiksha Bhawan, Rastrabhasha Parishad, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna- 800004 ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12662 of 2021) For the Petitioners : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate For the Resp No. 7 : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10918 of 2022) For the Petitioners : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate For the Resp No. 7 : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-08-2023

These two writ applications were heard together and are

being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For sake of reference, pleadings in CWJC No. 12662

of 2021 are being discussed.

3. The petitioners in the present writ applications are

seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i). For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondent authorities to merge the service of the petitioners who are working on contract basis on the post of Block Resource Person from Bihar Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad (now dissolved) to Bihar Education Project Council in the light of the Notification of the State Government vide Gyapank No. 423 dated 17.04.2018 and Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

in the light of the similarly situated other contractual employees are merged in Bihar Education Project Council.

(ii). For a direction to the respondent authorities to deduct the EPF from the petitioners from the date of their respective joining or from the date by which the EPF has been deducted from other contractual employee i.e. from the year 2015.

(iii) For a direction to the respondent authorities to grant all the benefit to the petitioners which has been given by the Bihar Education Project Council to the other contractual employees of Bihar Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad (now dissolved) from the date 18.07.2018.

(iv). For a direction to the respondent authorities to enhance the remuneration of the petitioners as per the decision taken by the High Level Committee and the Bihar Education Project Council with all consequential benefits.

(v). For a direction to the respondent authorities to grant CPI and others benefits to the petitioners as per the Office Order contained in Gyapank No. BMSP/MGT-256/12- 1125 dated 22.11.2012 which has been wrongly withheld by the respondent authorities.

(vi). For any relief/reliefs if petitioners found entitle in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

Brief Facts of the Case

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the Bihar

Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad (now dissolved) (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Parishad') was a registered organization

registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. The

Parishad was responsible for implementing centrally sponsored

programmes like Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (in short

'RMSA'). The Parishad was governed by an Executive Committee

constituted under the chairmanship of the Principal

Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

Government of Bihar. It has been dissolved by the order of the

State Government after closure of the 'RMSA' in the year 2018.

5. The Parishad, in its meeting dated 15.10.2012 decided

to make appointment on several posts with a condition that for this

all the necessary permissions were to be taken from the State

Government. A decision was taken to make appointment of 158

Block Resource Persons (in short 'BRPs') on contractual basis.

The decision in this regard has been brought on record as

Annexure '1' to the writ application.

6. It is stated that pursuant to Advertisement No. 225

(Education) 13-14 (Annexure '14' to the writ application), the

petitioners applied for the post of BRPs and they were selected.

Photocopies of some of the appointment letters have been placed

on record as Annexure '7 series' to the writ application. It is an

admitted case of the petitioners that these petitioners were engaged

on honorarium basis for a period of one year for which a short

term contract was executed. The petitioners were to get an

honorarium of Rs.10,000/- per month. The letter of engagement

also states in paragraph '7' that the contract will come to an end in

case the work/project/council is closed prior to completion of the

contract period. It further states that these

engagements/appointments are on temporary basis and in future Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

they would have no claim for absorption in the service of the

Central Government, State Government or the Parishad.

7. It is the case of the petitioners that the State Project

Director of the Parishad (now dissolved) wrote several letters to

the State Government for sanction of funds from the State Plan

Item, however, it was not sanctioned. The contracts of the

petitioners were extended from time to time.

8. It further appears that the State Government took a

decision to dissolve the Parishad in the light of the direction of the

Human Resource Development Ministry, Government of Bihar

and accordingly, vide Notification No. 423 dated 17.04.2018, it

has been published. It is stated that the Notification (Annexure '9')

would show that the Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Government of Bihar had directed for a composite implementation

of the schemes, namely, 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA)',

'Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA)' and 'Shikshak

Shiksha (TE) Projects' and it was directed that for the integrated

schemes one State Implementation Society-SIS will be there. The

integrated scheme was named as 'Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan'. The

Department of Education, Government of Bihar notified vide

Annexure '9' that the Bihar Education Project Council (hereinafter

referred to as the 'BEPC') shall be the State Implementing Society Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

and will be authorized to give effect to the integrated schemes. The

Parishad together with its assets, liabilities, staffs etc. was merged

with the BEPC and the Government decided to dissolve the

Parishad.

9. It is the case of the petitioners that upon the merger of

the Parishad with the BEPC, the contractual employees of the

Parishad were merged with the BEPC, it is only the BRPs of the

Parishad who were left out. In this regard, the Office Order dated

18.07.2018 has been brought on record as Annexure '10' to the

writ application.

10. The petitioners claimed that they have approached

the Department for consideration of their merger in the BEPC. A

Four-Men Committee was also constituted by the Department in

this matter and the Committee submitted a report. The grievance of

the petitioners is that the respondent authorities knowingly did not

merge the services of the petitioners in the BEPC which according

to them is in the teeth of the policy decision of the State

Government as contained in Annexure '9' to the writ application.

Submissions of the Petitioners

11. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners has taken this Court through the aforementioned

Annexures to the writ application including the scheme of merger Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

as contained in Annexure '10' to the writ application. Learned

senior counsel has placed reliance upon the minutes of the meeting

dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure 'L' to the supplementary counter

affidavit of BEPC (respondent no. 7)). It is submitted with

reference to Annexure 'L' that in the meeting chaired by the

Additional Chief Secretary of the Department of Education, a

decision was taken with regard to the BRPs (Prakhand Saadhan

Sevi). It has been mentioned in the said minute that there are five

sanctioned posts of BRPs in every block under the integrated

scheme of Samagra Shiksha sponsored by the Central

Government. According to Annexure 'L', as against the five

sanctioned posts in each block, three teachers were being engaged

and their services are being taken as BRPs and two posts of BRPs

are lying vacant at block level in the Block Resource Centre.

12. It is submitted that in the said meeting in which the

Director of BEPC and the Director of the Madhyamik Shiksha

were also present, several decisions were taken with regard to the

engagement of the BRPs who were engaged by the Parishad

against the temporary post. Learned senior counsel submits that at

this stage, the respondent State authorities as well as BEPC cannot

be allowed to contend that the petitioners cannot claim their

merger in the BEPC.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

13. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of

respondent nos. 3 and 6. It is their categorical stand that the

petitioners were engaged on short term contract under the scheme

launched by the Central Government known as 'Sarva Shiksha

Abhiyan (SSA)'. It is stated that the petitioners were engaged with

the specific terms and conditions that they cannot claim for their

absorption and they were made aware of the fact that the Parishad

is not creating any permanent post because it is only implementing

the scheme of the Central Government and no burden may be

given permanently in terms of the finances to the Central

Government, State Government or the Parishad.

14. It is further stated that the Director, Secondary

Education after due consideration directed the State Project

Director, BEPC to ensure payment of salary of the BRPs from the

Monitoring fund till their regular recruitment in accordance with

law against sanctioned/vacant posts or till 31.03.2022, whichever

is earlier and thereafter this arrangement has to come to an end

automatically. A copy of Letter No. 598 dated 11.10.2021 has been

placed as Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit.

15. It is stated that the Education Department,

Government of Bihar has already taken a decision not to extend Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

the engagement of the BRPs after 31.03.2022 and the payment of

their honorarium has already been made till 31.03.2022. It is

further stated that in case any of the candidates has not been paid

their honorarium for their working period till 31.03.2022, they are

at liberty to raise their claim before the competent authority.

16. A counter affidavit as well as a supplementary

counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 7. It is

their stand that the petitioners were neither appointed by the BEPC

nor they have rendered any service for the schemes of the BEPC.

They have not been adjusted because they were outside the

management structure of the Parishad as they were not being paid

their honorarium for MMER head of the erstwhile, RMSA. The

petitioners were being paid honorarium from the monitoring head

of Mukhyamantri Cycle/Poshak Yojana provided to the Parishad

(now dissolved) by the State Education Department.

17. It is stated that the Four-Men Committee has earlier

suggested to get approval of the Additional Chief Secretary,

Education Department before using the services of the BRPs by

the district level office of BEPC because these 86 BRPs were

temporarily appointed and were working in the dissolved Parishad

with a purpose of effective implementation, monitoring and Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

inspection of programmes related to the dissolved Parishad. They

were temporarily appointed after getting principle approval of the

Education Department in anticipation of getting financial support

under the State Planning Head of the Education. It is stated that the

Parishad, in its meeting dated 15.12.2012 had engaged the

petitioners in anticipation of release of grant by State Government

from its State Planning Head of the Education Department,

however, no order regarding sanction for appointment and fund of

the petitioners was received by the Parishad (now dissolved). They

were being paid their honorarium from the fund available under

monitoring head of Mukhyamantri Cycle/Poshak Yojana.

18. It is the categorical stand of the BEPC that the

Madhyamik Shiksha, Department of Education, Government of

Bihar vide Letter No. 09/598 dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure 'M' to

the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent no. 7) instructed

the State Project Director of BEPC that till the appointment on the

post of BRPs under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan against the

vacant post earmarked for Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools

or till 31st March, 2022 whichever is earlier the honorarium of

BRPs shall be paid from the 'Anushrawan' head and after 31 st

March, 2022 this arrangement shall automatically come to an end

and they will not be engaged in the 'Anushrawan' work of the Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools/DBTs. By yet another Letter

No. 11/;ks- 19-01/2015/506 dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure 'N' to the

supplementary counter affidavit of respondent no. 7), the Director

(Madhyamik Shiksha), Secondary Education has informed the

BEPC that the Additional State Project Director (Programme) had

in an irresponsible manner vide his Letter No. MGT/1084 made

the Secondary Education Directorate responsible for the

appointment and payment of salary to the BRPs whereas the fact is

that they were appointed by the Parishad (now dissolved). His

letter further states that in case of indecisiveness in the matter of

the BRPs and because of the negligence on the part of the BEPC,

the Secondary Education Directorate is facing this uncomfortable

situation.

Consideration

19. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records. To start with, there is no iota of doubt that

these petitioners were appointed on short term contract basis for a

period of one year and their appointment letters as contained in

Annexure '7 series' clearly state that they would not claim any

appointment/absorption in the service of the Parishad, State

Government or Central Government.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

20. What is evident from the records is that the

petitioners were engaged for implementation of one of the various

schemes of the Central Government. Earlier, the implementing

agency for the scheme was the Parishad but over the period by

virtue of the integration of the various schemes, the Ministry of

Human Resource Development issued a direction to the State

Government to integrate all the schemes and implement the same

through one State Implementing Society-SIS. This integrated

scheme was known as 'Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan'. The

Department of Education, Government of Bihar came out with its

notification as contained in Memo No. 423 dated 17.04.2018

(Annexure '9') which reads as under:-

" fcgkj ljdkj f"k{kk foHkkx

!!vf/klwpuk!! iVuk] fnukad --------------------

lafpdk la[;k&8@o03&36@2017------------@Ldwy f"k{kk ,oa lk{kjrk foHkkx] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj ls loZ f"k{kk vfHk;ku ¼SSA½] jk'Vªh; ek/;fed f"k{kk vfHk;ku ¼RMSA½ ,oa f"k{kd f"k{kk ¼TE½ ;kstukvksa ds ,dhd`r :i ls jkT; esa lapkfyr djus dk funs"k izkIr gSA ;g Hkh funs"k fn;k x;k gS fd bu ,dhd`r ;kstukvksa dk lapkyu ,d dh jkT; fØ;kUo;u lkslkbVh ¼State implementing Society - SIS½ }kjk gksxk rFkk bu ,dhd`r ;kstukvksa dk uke lexz f"k{kk vfHk;ku ¼Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan½ gksxkA bl lanHkZ esa fuEu funs"k fn, tkrs gS %& 1- loZ f"k{kk vfHk;ku ¼SSA½] jk'Vªh; ek/;fed f"k{kk vfHk;ku ¼RMSA½ ,oa f"k{kd f"k{kk ¼TE½ ;kstukvksa dks ,dhd`r dj Pre School ls d{kk XII rd ds fy, ,dhd`r u;h ;kstuk lapkfyr gksxh] ftldk uke lexz f"k{kk vfHk;ku ¼Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan½ gksxkA 2- lexz f"k{kk vfHk;ku dk iw.kZ jkT; esa fØ;kUo;u fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ ¼State implementing Society - SIS½ }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA 3- bl ,dhd`r ;kstuk ds fy, jkT; ifj;kstuk funs"kd ds :i esa fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn ds jkT; ifj;kstuk funs'kd izkf/kd`r fd;s tkrs gSA Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

4- jk'Vªh; ek/;fed f"k{kk vfHk;ku ds fØ;kUo;u gsrq xfBr lkslkbZVh fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ dk lafofy;u ¼dkfeZd] lEifr] nsunkjh bR;kfn lfgr½ fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ esa djus ij vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA 5- fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ uked f"k{kk foHkkx dh fucaf/kr lkslkbVh dks fo?kfVr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gSA 6 bl lafofy;u ls lacaf/kr vuqoÙkhZ dkjZokbZ fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ }kjk dh tk;sxh ,oa fo?kfVr fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ ds inkf/kdkjh ,oa dfeZ;ksa }kjk gj vko";d lg;ksx iznku fd;k tk;sxkA 7- izLrko ij ekuuh; f"k{kk ea=h] fcgkj dk vuqeksnu izkIr gSA 8- ;g vf/klwpuk rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksxhA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns"k ls] g0@& ¼fouksn dqekj flag½ vij lfpo] f"k{kk foHkkxA"

21. Upon issuance of the Notification as contained in

Annexure '9', the Parishad together with its assets, liabilities and

the staffs, etc. merged with the BEPC. It cannot be disputed that

these petitioners were engaged on temporary basis by the

'Parishad' for implementation of the schemes of the Central

Government for which the Parishad was made responsible. With

the merger of the Parishad in the BEPC, the petitioners were also

transferred with the temporary post within the management

structure of the BEPC. The temporary posts of BRPs (also known

as 'Prakhand Sadhan Sevi') were not abolished. The scheme of

merger as contained in Annexure '9' clearly shows that the

Parishad was merged together with its staffs, assets, liabilities etc.

The petitioners were continuously engaged as Prakhand Saadhan

Sevi and the post of Prakhand Saadhan Sevi still existed at the

block level.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

22. This Court further finds that vide Office Order as

contained in Memo No. 3933 dated 18.07.2018, the Executive

Committee of the BEPC authorized the State Project Director,

BEPC to take follow up action in the matter of the employees who

were working on contract basis in the management structure of the

Parishad. One of the decisions (Annexure '10' to the writ

application) taken by the Executive Committee of the BEPC inter-

alia in it's relevant part reads as under:-

"9- blh Øe esa fo?kfVr fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ esa lk/ku lsoh dk in l`ftr gS] ijUrq bl in uke ls dksbZ ij fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ ds izca/k lajpuk ds rgr l`ftr ugha gSA ifj'kn~ varxZr lgk;d dk;Z Øe inkf/kdkjh @ jkT; lk/ku lsoh ds ckn lgk;d lk/ku lsoh dk in lqftr gSa fo?kfVr fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ esa lk/ku lsoh dk ekfld osru@ ifjyfC/k fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;sktuk ifj'kn~ ds uofu;qDRk gksusokys lgk;d lk/ku lsoh ds in ls Hkh de gSAa ,sls esa fo?kfVr fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ esa lk/ku lsoh dks fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ esa lgk;d lk/ku lsoh ds in ij lkeaftr fd;k tkrk gSA 10- fo?kfVr fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ esa lgk;d lk/kulsoh uke ls in l`ftr gS] tks Js.kh **C** dk in gS ,oa buds fu;ksDrk @ fu;qfDr ftyk Lrjh; izca/ku lajpuk ds rgr gksrk gSA ijUrq fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ ds rgr lgk;d lk/ku lsoh dk in xzsM &II ¼izksQs"kuy½ dk gS ,oa bldh fu;qfDr jkT; Lrjh; izca/ku lajpuk ds vUrxZr dh tkrh gSaA lgk;d lk/ku lsoh dk in fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ dk LFkkiuk dky ls gh l`ftr gSa ,sls esa fo?kfVRk fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ds lgk;d lk/ku lsoh ds in ij dk;Zjr lafonk dkfeZdksa dks] ifj'kn~ varxZRk dk;ZØe lgk;d ¼Programme Assistant½ ds inuke ij inLFkfir ftyk Lrjh; izca/ku lajpuk ds rgr dh dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr dh Lohd`fr dh izR;k"kk esa l`ftr djrs gq, lkeaftr fd;k tkrk gSa ifj'kn~ vUrxZr liksZV Js.kh & III ds rgr dk;ZØe lgk;d ¼Programme Assistant½ ds inuke ds dqy 60 in lqftr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSa ;g in ej.k"khy ¼Dying½ in gksxk ,oa dehZ fo"ks'k ds inR;kx vFkok lsok lekfIr dh fLFkfr esa ;g in Hkfo'; esa Lor% lekIr gks tk;sxkA ;g lkeatu dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr ds fu.kZ; ls izHkkfor gksxkA"

23. It is evident from paragraph '9' of the Office Order

(Annexure '10') that the post of Saadhan Sevi is a sanctioned post Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

in the Parishad, but in the BEPC there is no such post by the said

name in the management structure. The BEPC found that the

monthly wages/honorarium of the Saadhan Sevi in the Parishad

was less than the Assistant Saadhan Sevi post in the BEPC. Under

these circumstances, it was decided that the Saadhan Sevis of the

Parishad are absorbed/adjusted as Assistant Saadhan Sevi in the

BEPC.

24. This Court further finds from the records that in the

meeting which took place on 16.08.2021 under the chairmanship

of the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education

(Annexure 'L' to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent

no. 7), all the stackholders were present. The State Project

Director, BEPC, the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, the

Director, Secondary Education and the Additional Chief Secretary,

Department of Education were present. The decisions taken in the

said meeting are worth taking note of hereunder:-

" cSBd dh dk;Zokgh

fnukad &16-08-2021 dks 11%00 cts iwokZg~u vij eq[; lfpo] f"k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj dh v/;{rk esa fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ¼lEizfr fo?kfVr½ ds rgr vLFkk;h in ij fu;ksftr iz[kaM lk/ku lsoh dh lsok ds lca/k esa vkgwr cSBd dh dk;Zokgh %&

mifLFkfr %& iath esa la/kkfjrA loZizFke mi funs"kd ¼ek0f"k0½ }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ¼lEizfr fo?kfVr½ ds varxZr o'kZ & 2013 esa ek/;fed f"k{kk ls tqMs+ fofHkUu dk;ZØeksa ds fØ;kUo;u vuqJo.k ,oa Ik;Zos{k.k dks izHkkoh cukus ds mís"; ls jkT; ;kstuk ls buds foŸk iks'k.k ij lS)kafrd fu.kZ; ysrs gq, izR;sd 25 ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ij ,d iz[kaM lk/ku lsoh dh nj ls dqy 158 iz[kaM lk/ku lsfo;ksa ds vLFkkbZ in ij lafonk vk/kkfjr fu;qfDr fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

ifj'kn~ }kjk fd, tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA o'kZ 2018&19 esa lexz f"k{kk vfHk;ku ds izkjaHk gksus ds mijkar fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ dk lafofy;u fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ ds lkFk gks x;kA jkT; esa dqy 86 iz[kaM lk/ku lsfo;ksa ds dk;Zjr gksus dh lwpuk izkIr gSA orZeku esa mDr iz[kaM lk/ku lsoh ds ekuns; muds izklafxdrk ,oa vkxs dh j.kuhfr ij fopkj fd;k tkuk gSA fofnr gks fd orZeku esa lHkh iapk;rksa esa ,d mPp ek/;fed fo|ky; dh LFkkiuk laca/kh ljdkj ds fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa dqy 9361 mPp ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa pyk;s tk jgs dY;k.kdkjh ;kstukvksa ds vuqJo.k ,ao Ik;Zos{k.k ds fy, Hkh iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh] ek/;fed f"k{kk dh vko";drk gSA bl laca/k esa oLrqfLFkfr ;g gS fd %& ¼1½ fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ }kjk muds ekuns; Hkqxrku gsrq jkT;

;kstuk en esa Lohd`fr izkIr dj jkf"k miyC/k djkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k fdUrq bl en esa jkf"k d.kkZfdr ugha dh xbZA vifrq jkT; ;kstukvksa ls lapkfyr lkbZfdy ,oa iks"kkd ;kstuk vkfn esa vuqJo.k gsrq izko/kkfur 1 izfr"kr dh jkf"k ls ekpZ 2021 rd ekuns; Hkqxrku gsrq jkf"k miyC/k djkbZ xbZA vizSy 2021 ls v|ru jkf"k miyC/k ugha djkus ds dkj.k ekuns; Hkqxrku&yafcr gSA ¼2½ jkT; ifj;kstuk funs"kd fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd dsUnz izk;ksftr ;kstuk ;Fkk& lexz f"k{kk ds rgr izR;sd iz[k.M lalk/ku dsUnz gsrq iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh dk 05&05 in l`ftr gS] ftlesa ls lsokdkyhu izf"k{k.k ,ao "ks{kf.kd vuqleFkZu ds fy, dk;Zjr f"k{kdksa esa ls fofgÙk izfØ;k dks viukrs gq, 03&03 f"k{kdksa dh lsok iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh ds :i esa yh tk jgh gSA bl izdkj iz[k.M Lrj ¼iz[k.M lalk/ku dsUnz½ ij 02&02 iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh dk in fjDr gSA mi;ZqDr ds vkyksd esa ;g loZlEer fu.kZ; fy; x;k fd %& • orZeku esa dk;Zjr iz[kaM lk/ku lsoh ¼ek0f"k0½ dh fooj.kh fofgr izi= esa izkIr dh tk,A ¼vuqikyu& funs"kd] ek0f"k0½ • iz[k.M lalk/ku dsUnz Lrj ij fjDr 02 iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh ds inksa esa ls ek/;fed@mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; ,oa DBT laca/kh foHkUu dk;ZØeks ds fØ;kUo;u] vuqJo.k ,oa i;Zos{k.k rFkk izkjfEHkd fo|ky; ,oa DBT laca/kh fofHkUu dk;ZØeksa ds fØ;kUo;u] vuqJo.k ,oa i;Zos{k.k gsrq Øe"k% 01&01 in d.kkZafdr fd;k tk;A ¼vuqikyu & jkT; ifj;kstuk funs"kd] BEPC½ • ek/;fed@mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; ,oa DBT laca/kh fofHkUUk dk;ZØeksa ds fØ;kUo;u] vuqJo.k ,oa i;Zos{k.k ds fy, iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh ds d.kkZafdr 01 in ds fo:) fofgr izfØ;k ds rgr fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ esa fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ¼lEizfr fo?kfVr½ ds rgr vLFkk;h in ij fu;skftr ,oa orZeku esa dk;Zjr iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh dks izkFkfedrk iznku fd;k tk;A ¼vuqikyu & jkT; ifj;kstuk funs"kd] BEPC½ • fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ¼lEizfr fo?kfVr½ ds rgr orZeku esa dk;Zjr iz[akM lk/ku lsfo;ksa dk osru o'kZ 2013 esa gh fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS] tks orZeku le; esa dkQh de gSa tcfd vU; led{k inksa dk osru iqujh{k.k dj fn;k x;k gSa vr% bl in ds fy, Hkh osru iqujhf{kr djus gsrq izLrko rS;kj dj lexz f"k{kk ds izkstsDV vizwoy cksMZ ¼PAB½ f"k{kk ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj ds le{k j[kk tk,A ¼vuqikyu & jkT; ifj;kstuk funs"kd] BEPC½ • pwafd iz"uxr iz[kaM lk/ku lsoh orZeku esa dk;Zjr gS rFkk buds }kjk fofHkUu dk;ZØeksa ds vuqJo.k rFkk izfrosnuksa ds izs'k.k dk dk;Z fd;k tk jgk gS] vr% lexz f"k{kk ds rgr ek/;fed @mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; ds fy, iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh ds d.kkZafdr in ij fu;ksftr gksus rd bUgsa jkT; ;kstukvsa ls lapkfyr dk;ZØeksa ds vuqJo.k en esa izko/kkfur 1 izfr"kr dh jkf"k ls ekuns; Hkqxrku dh Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

dkjZokbZ dh tk,A ¼vuqikyu& funs"kd] ek0f"k½ var esa cSBd l?U;okn lekIr dh x;hA g0@& g0@& g0@& g0@& g0@& g0@& ftyk f"k{kk vij jkT; mi funs"kd jkT; ifj;kstuk funs"kd vij eq[; lfpo inkf/kdkjh ifj;kstuk funs"kd ek/;fed funs"kd ek/;fed f"k{kk f"k{kk foHkkx iVuk ¼dk;ZØe½ fcgkj f"k{kk fcgkj f"k{kk f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ ifj'kn~

25. From Annexure 'L', it is crystal clear that under the

Centrally sponsored integrated scheme 'Samagra Shiksha

Abhiyan' at every Block Resource Centre, there are five

sanctioned post of Saadhan Sevi against which three teachers were

being engaged as Prakhand Saadhan Sevi and two posts of the

Prakhand Saadhan Sevi were lying vacant in each of the Block

Resource Centre. It was decided that the details of the working

Block Saadhan Sevi (Secondary Education) be obtained in the

prescribed format and the two vacant posts were to be earmarked

for different programmes. A conscious decision was taken that for

the implementation of the programmes relating to the

Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools and DBT, one post is to be

earmarked and engagement against the said post be done in

accordance with the prescribed procedures in which the presently

working Prakhand Saadhan Sevis who were working against the

temporary post in the Parishad was to be given preference. Several

other decisions were taken in the said meeting including one that

under the 'Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan' till the appointment of Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

Prakhand Saadhan Sevi against the earmarked post, they will be

paid from the schemes of the State Government at the rate of 1%.

26. To this Court, it appears that at this stage, the

Director, Secondary Education, Education Department,

Government of Bihar and the State Project Director of BEPC have

fallen apart and the Director, Secondary Education is alleging

irresponsibility on the part of the State Project Director, BEPC.

One of the letters which has been brought on the record by

respondent nos. 3 and 6 with their counter affidavit demonstrates

the dispute between the Director, Secondary Education and the

State Project Director, BEPC. This Court would reproduce the said

letter dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure 'B' to the counter affidavit of

respondent nos. 3 and 6) as under:-

"i=kad & 11@;ks- 19&01@2015 506

isz'kd]

eukst dqekj]

funs"kd ¼ek/;fed f"k{kk½A

lsok esa] jkT; ifj;kstuk funs"kd] fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~] iVukA iVuk] fnukad 14&3&22 fo'k; %& fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ¼leizfr fo?kfVr½ ds rgr vLFkkbZ :i ls fu;ksftr iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh dh lsok ds lca/k esAa izlax %& bl dk;kZy; dk i=kad &1040 fnukad &06-08-2020] i=kad fnukd 11-

09-2020 ,oa Kkikad & 1469 fnukad & 09-09-2021 Kkikad & 183 fnukad 03-02-2021 egk"k;] mi;qZDr fo'k;d izklafaxd i= dk lanHkZ fy;k tk;A jk'Vªh;

ek/;fed f"k{kk vfHk;ku ¼leizfr fo?kfVr½ ds rgr fu;qDr iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh ds laca/k ea muds dk;Zdyki dh mikns;rk ,oa muds dk;kZof/k ds foLrkj bR;kfn ds Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

laca/k esa ,d rF;ijd izfrosnu dh ekax dh xbZ FkhA mDr Øe esa Jherh fdj.k dqekjh] jkT; dk;ZØe inkf/kdkjh dk i=kad & 6046 fnukad & 23-11-2020 izkIr gqvk] ftlesa mDr lanfHkZr izfrosnu ftyk f"k{kk inkf/kdkjh ls izkIr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA blh Øe esa fnukad & 16-08-2021 dk vkgwr cSBd esa iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh jk'Vªh; ek/;fed f"k{kk vfHk;ku ¼lEizfr fo?kfVr½ ds laca/k esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ls lacaf/kr vuqikyu gsrq fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ iVuk dks funsf"kr fd;k x;k rFkk d;kZjr iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh dk ekuns; vuqJo.k en esa izko/kkfur jkf"k ls d.kkaZfdr in ij fu;ksftr gksus rd djus dk funs"k fn;k x;kA mDr cSBd esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ls lacaf/kr vuqikyu v|ru vizkIr jgus ds dkj.k vxzsŸkj dkjZokbZ ckf/kr gSA blh Øe es vij jkT; ifj;kstuk funs"kd ¼dk;ZØe½ fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ dk i= la[;k & MGTO 1084 izkIr gS] ftlesa xSj ftEesnkjkuk <ax ls fu;qfDr ,ao osrukfn ds Hkqxrku ls lacaf/kr ekeys ij fu.kZ; ysus gsrq ek/;fed f"k{kk funs"kky; ls lacaf/kr crk;k x;k gSA tcfd iz"uxr dfeZ;ks dh fu;qfDr fcgkj ek/;fed f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ¼lEizfr lexz f"k{kk vfHk;ku esa lefgr ½ }kjk dh xbZ FkhA mDr iz[k.M lk/ku lsfo;ksa ds laca/k esa vfu.kZ; dh fLFkfr esa ,oa fcgkj f"k{kk ifj;kstuk ifj'kn~ dh ykijokgh ls ek/;fed f"k{kk funs"kky; dks vlgt fLFkfr dk lkeuk djuk iM+rk gSA vr% vuqjks/k gS fd mDr lanHkZ esa vius Lrj ls fo'k;k/khu iz[k.M lk/ku lsoh dh lsok ds lcaf/k esa fu.kZ; ysdj Li'Vr% lalwfpr fd;k tk,A fo"oklHkktu vuqyXud& fnukad & 16-08-2021 dh cSBd dh dk;ZokghA g0@& ¼eukst dqekj½ funs"kd ¼ek/;fed f"k{kk½"

27. On perusal of the statements made in the counter

affidavit of respondent nos. 3 and 6 also it would appear that in

paragraph '15', these respondents are alleging that the deponent on

behalf of the BEPC while swearing the counter affidavit has discussed

about various letters from 2012 to 2019 but perhaps he has overlooked

the different letters of the Education Department as well as Annexure

'C' issued under the signature of the State Project Director, BEPC

inadvertently. In paragraph '16' though respondent nos. 3 and 6 have

made a statement that the Education Department, Government of Bihar

has already taken a decision not to extend the engagement of the BRPs

after 31.03.2022 but the copy of such a decision, if any, has not been

brought on record. Annexures placed before this Court nowhere shows Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

any such decision of the Education Department. In fact, Annexure 'B' to

the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 3 and 6 clearly demonstrates

that it is a case of indecisiveness on the part of the BEPC in the matter

of implementation of the decision already taken in the meeting dated

16.08.2021 (Annexure 'L' to the supplementary counter affidavit of

respondent no. 7). The BEPC has, on the one hand, not taken any steps

to initiate appointment against the earmarked posts of Prakhand

Saadhan Sevi and at the same time, they are bent upon dispensing with

the petitioners who are working against the sanctioned posts of

Prakhand Saadhan Sevi.

28. This Court is of the considered opinion that while the

petitioners have no right to claim their absorption as a regular employee of

the BEPC, State Government or the Central Government, they having been

appointed by the Parishad (now dissolved) after advertisement and in

accordance with the procedures which is in conformity with Article 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India, cannot be ousted in the manner it is being

done. The stand of the respondent nos. 3 and 6 that the Education

Department, Government of Bihar has already taken a decision not to

extend engagement of BRPs after 31.03.2022 is neither supported by any

such decision placed before this Court nor it may be accepted for the

reason that under the 'Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan', there is a provision for

engagement of BRPs/Prakhand Saadhan Sevi, therefore, it is difficult to

understand as to how the Education Dep artment, Government of Bihar

can take a view not to extend the engagement of these petitioners unless Patna High Court CWJC No.12662 of 2021 dt.17-08-2023

some other acceptable reason/reasons exists/exist. No other reason has

been shown to this Court. It is not the case of the respondent nos. 3 and

6 as also respondent no. 7 that the petitioners were engaged/appointed

against the temporary post by the Parishad in violation of the

established procedure of law or that the post of BRPs/Prakhand Sadhan

Sevi has been abolished.

29. Thus, the BEPC is directed to act in accordance with the

decision of its Executive Committee as contained in Office Order vide

Memo No. 3933 dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure '10' to the writ

application) keeping in view the decision contained in the minutes dated

16.08.2021 (Annexure 'L' to the supplementary counter affidavit of

respondent no. 7) within a period of two months from the date of

receipt/communication of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall

continue and they would be entitled to receive their honorarium in the

manner they were allowed till 14.03.2022. In result, the petitioners

would also be entitled for the consequential benefits.

30. Both the writ applications are disposed of in the

aforementioned terms.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                    10.08.2023
Uploading Date              17.08.2023
Transmission Date