JUDGMENT
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.
1. Heard the parties finally.
2. Mr. A.K. Verma, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that inspite of order dated 25.7.2006 (Annexure 7) passed in W.P. (S) No. 1396 of 2004, the respondents has rejected petitioner’s claim on the ground that he was appointed on compassionate ground.
3. Counsel for the State submitted that petitioner was actually appointed as Matric Trained Teacher and not as B.Sc. Untrained Teacher, as the formalities for appointing B.Sc. Untrained Teacher were not complied while appointing the petitioner; and that there is difference between appointment on a post and grant of pay scale.
4. In reply, Mr. Verma submitted that the petitioner was rightly appointed as Science Teacher in B.Sc. Untrained scale. He referred to Circular No. 223 dated 2.6.1988 to show that the Matric Trained Teacher does not come under the category of Science Teacher. He submitted that the petitioner was directly appointed as B.Sc. Untrained Science Teacher which will also appear from his service book.
5. In my opinion, the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary and are liable to be set aside. The arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the State and the documents relied in support of such submissions were available to the State when the said order was passed on 25.7.2006 in W.P. (S) No. 1396 of 2004 filed by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.7.2006 reads as under:
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed for on two counts: (i) he is being discriminated against other similarly situated persons with same qualification and performing same duty; and (ii) principle of ‘Equal pay for equal work’ is attracted in the present case.
Once a person is appointed on permanent basis on substantive post, he becomes a member of the service. He cannot be treated differently and with hostility, either in the matter of pay scale or for any other purpose, merely because his source of recruitment is different. Any hostile treatment to such a person is itself violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits treating equals as unequals.
Similarly, petitioner and all other teachers, who are trained graduate, cannot be denied same pay scale, particularly when they are performing similar duties merely because petitioner’s appointment is on compassion. Respondents have nowhere stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not eligible or lacks any qualification to be placed in Trained Teachers Scale.
This petition is, accordingly, allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for placement in B.Sc. Trained Teachers Scale on the basis of his qualification, subject to his eligibility with effect from the date, he has acquired the qualification, if permissible under law.
6. Inspite of such orders, the concerned respondents passed the impugned order dated 18.3.2007 denying the claim of the petitioner on the same ground that he was appointed on compassionate ground. When the petitioner filed the contempt petition, the respondents passed the order dated 15.11.2007 reiterating the same ground. If the respondents were aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1396 of 2004, they could move the appellate Court. There is nothing to show that the said order has been upset by any Court. Thus the said order became final and binding on the respondents, but even then the respondents had audacity to pass the impugned orders.
7. In the circumstances, the impugned orders dated 18.3.2007 and 15.11.2007 are set aside and the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar is directed to see that the petitioner gets B.Sc. trained scale with effect from 3.5.2002, when he passed the teachers training examination, within four weeks from today. When I was going to impose heavy cost on the concerned respondents, on the humble request of Mr. Ambastha, appearing for the State, no cost is imposed.
8. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed. Let a copy of the order be given to State counsel, as prayed.