Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, through Justice Harish Kumar, disposed of a writ petition filed by a group of teachers seeking grant of the trained pay scale after completion of three years of regular service. The Court observed that the issue had already been settled in earlier decisions, particularly Abdus Samad v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 7322 of 2017), where it was held that teachers cannot be denied the trained scale merely because they were not deputed for in-service training due to the administration’s delay. Following this precedent, the Court directed the petitioners to file a representation before the concerned authorities within four weeks, and ordered that the authorities dispose of the same within eight weeks thereafter. The Court further held that if the petitioners’ claim is found valid, they must be granted all consequential monetary benefits.
Facts
The petitioners, all appointed as teachers under the Education Department of Bihar, approached the High Court seeking parity with similarly placed teachers who had been granted trained pay scales upon completion of three years of regular service. The petitioners’ grievance was that despite having served continuously, they had not been granted the Matric Trained Pay Scale applicable to teachers who completed the requisite training and tenure.
They contended that they were never sent for in-service training by the authorities, though this was not their fault. As a result, they were deprived of the trained scale and the financial benefits attached to it, even though their counterparts in similar circumstances were granted the same after judicial intervention in earlier cases.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the trained pay scale upon completion of three years of regular service, even though they were not deputed for in-service training by the department.
- Whether the precedent set in Abdus Samad v. State of Bihar applies to the present case, despite differences in appointment conditions.
- What directions should be issued to ensure parity and fair consideration of the petitioners’ claim by the education authorities.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the decision in Abdus Samad v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 7322 of 2017), wherein the Court had categorically held that employees cannot be made to suffer financially for the delay or failure of the administration in deputing them for training. It was argued that the petitioners had diligently served in their posts and completed three years of continuous service, satisfying the requirement for the trained scale.
They further referred to the order in C.W.J.C. No. 14553 of 2023, in which identically situated teachers were granted similar relief, and the Court had directed the District Education Officer, Vaishali, to consider their claim for trained pay scale in light of Abdus Samad. Accordingly, they prayed for similar consideration and consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and the Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State, represented by its counsel, opposed the petition, asserting that the case of Abdus Samad was distinguishable. It was argued that in that case, the appointment letter of the petitioner had specifically mentioned a condition regarding being sent for training within three years of appointment. The current petitioners, however, did not have any such clause in their appointment orders, making their claim inapplicable under the same rationale.
The State contended that the grant of trained pay scale without training would violate the policy framework of the Education Department, and that the petitioners’ situation did not fall under the scope of previous judicial decisions. It was submitted that the petitioners should first make a detailed representation before the competent authorities to ascertain their eligibility based on the record.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the legal foundation governing the entitlement to the trained pay scale for teachers under the Bihar Education Department. It noted that under service jurisprudence, an employee cannot be penalized for administrative lapses beyond their control. In Abdus Samad v. State of Bihar, the Court had applied this equitable principle to direct that employees not sent for training due to departmental delays must still receive the benefits of the trained scale after completing three years of continuous service.
The Court emphasized that equality under Article 14 of the Constitution requires uniform treatment of similarly situated employees, and arbitrary differentiation based on administrative omission would constitute unfair discrimination. The law recognizes that when the employer fails to perform its statutory or administrative duties, the employees should not be deprived of their rightful benefits.
Precedent Analysis
- Abdus Samad v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 7322 of 2017) — The Division Bench held that teachers cannot be denied the trained pay scale merely because they were not deputed for in-service training within the stipulated period, as such delay was attributable to the authorities. The Court directed grant of the trained scale after three years from the date of joining.
Reference in this case: The Patna High Court applied the same rationale to the present petition, noting that the underlying principle of fairness and non-discrimination remained the same. - C.W.J.C. No. 14553 of 2023 — In this case, the Court had relegated similarly placed teachers to approach the District Education Officer, Vaishali, for consideration of their claim based on the Abdus Samad decision.
Reference in this case: This precedent served as a procedural model for the current judgment, directing the petitioners to approach the same authority within a specified timeframe.
These cases collectively established that failure of the administration to deputize teachers for training cannot operate to their disadvantage.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Harish Kumar observed that the principle established in Abdus Samad continues to hold relevance and binds the authorities to act fairly in cases involving denial of trained scales. The Court held that while minor distinctions in the wording of appointment letters might exist, the substantive right of an employee to fair consideration cannot be defeated on technical grounds.
Recognizing that the grievance required factual verification of service records and training details, the Court refrained from issuing a blanket direction but ensured that the petitioners were not left remediless. It thus permitted them to file a representation along with a copy of the earlier judgments to the District Education Officer and District Programme Officer, who were directed to decide the matter within eight weeks.
The Court further clarified that if the petitioners’ claim is found justified, the respondents must not only grant the trained scale but also issue consequential orders for monetary benefits, ensuring that teachers are not forced into prolonged litigation for basic entitlements.
Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation before the District Education Officer and the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali, within four weeks. The Court directed the concerned authorities to decide the matter within eight weeks thereafter, in light of the precedent laid down in Abdus Samad v. State of Bihar.
If the authorities find merit in the petitioners’ claim, they are required to issue appropriate orders granting the trained pay scale and all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears, in accordance with law.
Implications
This judgment reiterates the principle that government employees cannot be made to suffer for lapses on the part of the administration. It upholds parity among similarly placed teachers and safeguards their right to equitable treatment under service law. The decision further strengthens the enforceability of judicial precedents in ensuring that subordinate authorities act uniformly and fairly.
It also highlights the High Court’s balanced approach—while ensuring employees’ rights are protected, it maintains procedural propriety by directing representations to be decided by competent administrative authorities within defined timeframes.
FAQs
1. What did the Patna High Court decide about the trained pay scale for teachers?
The Court directed that teachers who completed three years of service but were not deputed for training due to administrative delay must have their cases considered for the trained pay scale, following the precedent in Abdus Samad v. State of Bihar.
2. Does the absence of a clause in the appointment letter affect entitlement?
No. The Court held that minor variations in appointment conditions cannot deprive employees of legitimate benefits if they are otherwise similarly situated.
3. What time limit has been set for decision on representation?
The petitioners must submit a representation within four weeks, and the District Education Officer and Programme Officer must decide it within eight weeks thereafter.
