Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Bihar on 23 April, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.615 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7258 of 2018
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Tiwari Son of Kamta Prasad Tivari resident of Village Bheldi,
Anchal Parsa, District Saran at Chapra presently posted as Prakhand Teacher
in Rajkiya Middle School Kolhua Daraunda Under Block Daraunda, District-
Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat
Building, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat,
Building, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Siwan, District -Siwan.
5. The District Education Officer, Siwan, District- Siwan.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan, District- Siwan.
7. The Block Development Officer, Daraunda Block, District- Siwan.
8. The Block Education Officer, Daraunda Block, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Vinay Prasad Singh, AC to GA-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 23-04-2025
The appellant has assailed the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 22.08.2022 passed in CWJC No. 7258 of
2018.
2. Appellant's father died on 11.04.2005 while he was
serving as a Teacher in the Education Department, State of
Bihar whereas appellant had submitted application for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.615 of 2022 dt.23-04-2025
2/5
compassionate appointment in the year 2005 itself. His name is
stated to have been recommended for compassionate
appointment by the Compassionate Appointment Committee on
31.12.2005
, thereafter he was appointed on 05.06.2007 under
the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and
Service Conditions), Rules-2006 insofar as invoking Rule-10. It
is necessary to reproduce Rule-10 and it reads as under:-
"10. Employment on compassionate basis.
The dependants of teachers/employee other than
teachers may be employed on compassionate basis
against the available vacant posts of Panchyat
teacher/Block teacher according to prescribed
qualification. Employment on compassionate basis will
be done by the above mentioned committee in the light
of norms and conditions prescribed by Personnel and
Administrative reforms Department regarding
appointment on compassionate basis untrained
dependants shall have been trained within 6 years of
their employment."
3. The aforementioned rule is applicable to such of
those teachers/employees who were working in Panchayat
Department and these Rules are not applicable to State
Departments. On the other hand, appellant's father was working
in Education Department as a teacher on a permanent post,
whereas Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment
and Service Conditions), Rules-2006 are with certain
qualification and conditions. When the appellant's father was
working in Education Department there was no point in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.615 of 2022 dt.23-04-2025
considering the appellant's name for compassionate
appointment in the Panchayat Department. In other words, in
terms of relevant Compassionate Appointment Rules or
Regulations issued by General Administration Department
(GAD) was required to be adhered to insofar as providing
compassionate appointment to Group-C or Group-D post
(Class-III and Class-IV post). From inception, they have
committed error, resultantly the appellant has not been extended
the benefit of pay scale attached to a particular post. On the
other hand, he has been extended consolidated pay insofar as
discharging the duties of a Block Teacher post. In other words,
nature of compassionate appointment is against a post which
carries consolidated pay. The appellant should have been
extended post which carries a particular pay scale and in the
government service. These material information have not been
apprised by the respective officers-respondents and so also the
learned Single Judge.
4. Taking note of these facts and circumstances, the
appellant has made out a case that he is entitled to particular pay
scale for the Block Teacher post and it does not carry any pay
scale, in that event any Group-C category post in Bihar
Panchayat. The same shall be extended from the date of his
Patna High Court L.P.A No.615 of 2022 dt.23-04-2025
appointment. Question of delay may not arise in view of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M.R. Gupta vs.
Union of India reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628. However,
appellant is not entitled to monetary benefits, three years prior
to the date of filing of CWJC No. 7258 of 2018. In other words,
appellant is entitled to have the benefit of pay scale and
monetary benefits from the year 2015 with reference to the date
of filing of writ petition. This principle has been laid down in
the aforementioned Supreme Court decision in M.R. Gupta
(cited supra). The concerned authority is hereby directed to
undertake the above exercise and assign a particular pay scale
under Group-C/Class-III post from the date of his appointment
and proceed to grant annual increment from time to time, further
ACP benefit, if any. The above exercise shall be undertaken and
benefits shall be extended to the appellant within a period of six
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order. It is made clear that appellant is not entitled to
arrears/difference of salary attached to a Group-C/Class-III post
from the date of his appointment till three years prior to filing of
CWJC No. 7258 of 2018.
5. To the above extent LPA is allowed while quashing
the order of the learned Single Judge 22.08.2022 passed in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.615 of 2022 dt.23-04-2025
CWJC No. 7258 of 2018.
6. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
7. At this stage, learned State counsel Mr. Ram Vinay
Prasad Singh, AC to GA-12 submitted that already a decision
has been taken that appellant is not entitled to particular pay
scale. The same cannot be appreciated for the reason that the
appointing authority to the appellant and other officers have
ignored the relevant law insofar as compassionate appointment
to a regular post. There is no policy decision of compassionate
appointment of a regular holder of the post in a particular
department to appoint on compassionate ground on contractual
basis or on consolidated pay. In fact, cost is warranted in the
present case having regard to the fact that the appellant has
approached this Court only in the year-2015, therefore, it is not
a case for imposition of cost.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
