IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7139 of 2004
BIHAR MINORITIES/AIDED PR.TEAC
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
12 28.09.2010 This writ application has been filed
in a representative capacity by the President
of Bihar Minorities/Aided Primary Teachers
Association. The grievance of the petitioner
Association is that though the 5th Pay
Revision was introduced in respect of the
teachers of the Minority Institutions in the
State with effect from 01.04.1989, its actual
monetary benefits have been allowed to them
with effect from 01.04.1993 only. It is an
admitted position that this was done pursuant
to a resolution of the Government contained
in memo no. 3268 dated 05.11.1993. It is
submitted that similarly the 6th Pay Revision
has been introduced in respect of the
teachers of the Minority Institutions with
effect from 01.04.1997, but its monetary
benefits are being given to the teachers with
effect from 01.07.2005 only, whereas the
teacher of other Aided Schools have been
allowed monetary benefits with effect from
01.04.1989 and 01.04.1997 itself
2
respectively.
The submissions of learned counsel
for the petitioners are to fold, namely, (i)
as per the Government decision notified
through letter no.1848 dated 19.04.1978, the
teachers and non-teaching employees of
Minority Institutions were to be treated at
par with that of taken over Primary Schools
in the matters of pay scales, Dearness
Allowance and, (ii) This Court by a judgment
rendered on 19.09.1997 in CWJC no. 5336 of
1996 had already quashed the said part of the
resolution dated 05.11.1993, by which it was
held that teachers and other employees of
Aided Primary/Middle Schools including
Minority schools shall be entitled for
monetary benefits only with effect from
01.04.1993. This Court also held that the
petitioners and other similarly situated
teachers and employees of Aided
Primary/Middle Schools are entitled for
revision of pay scale of which fixation is to
be made with effect from 01.01.1986 and
arrears of salary is to be paid with effect
from 01.03.1989. He submits that the part of
the said resolution, which is the sheet-
3
anchor of the case of the respondents for
this discrimination, stands already quashed
and, therefore, teachers of Minority
Institutions represented by the Association
are also entitled for payment of their
arrears with effect from 01.03.1989.
The findings of the learned Single
Judge passed in the said judgment is fit to
be reproduced, which is as under:-
“I set aside the portion of the
impugned resolution dated 5.11.1993,
by which it has been ordered to pay
monetary benefits to the teachers and
other employees of Aided
Primary/Middle Schools with effect
from 01.04.1993. I hold that the
petitioners and others similarly
situated teachers and employees of
Aided Primary/Middle Schools are
entitled for revision of pay scale of
which fixation is to be made with
effect from 01.01.1986 and arrears of
salary is to be made with effect from
01.03.1989.”
The above findings of the learned
Single Judge shows that the part of the
resolution dated 05.11.1993 treating the
teachers of Aided Primary/Middle Schools, as
well as that of the Minority Schools,
differently from the teachers of other
Nationalized Schools was quashed by this
Court. It is also clear that the findings of
4
the learned Single Judge are in rem and not
in personem. Therefore, the same has to be
applied in the cases of teachers and other
employees of all the Aided Primary/Middle
Schools of the State.
Learned counsel for the State
submits that, in this judgment, the case of
the Minority Aided Institutions was not
considered. But, to this Court it appears
that if the teachers and other employees of
Aided Primary/Middle Schools were held to be
entitled for the said benefit, there can be
no rationale for not extending the said
benefit to the teachers and other employees
of Aided Minority Primary/Middle Schools. It
is true that under Article 14 of the
Constitution two different groups of persons
or two groups of Institutions can be treated
differently and policy decisions can be taken
in their respect differently. But this
differential treatment must be based on some
rationale. If the respondents fail to
establish the rationale or reasons for
treating two similarly situated Institutions
differently, the act of the State shall be
clearly violative of Article 14 of the
5
Constitution. This is also clear that the
offending part of the said resolution dated
05.11.1993 which included both Minority Aided
Schools and other Aided Schools, stands
quashed. Therefore, the State has to satisfy
this Court as to why the said offending part
of the said resolution can be treated as
operative against the teachers and other
employees of Aided Minority Primary/Middle
Schools. This requires a deeper analysis of
the matter and consideration of the issue at
the highest level of the Government.
Therefore, learned G.A.-V is
requested to call a meeting of the officials
of the Department and discuss the matter
along with them in the light of this order of
the Court. After due deliberation a firm
decision shall be taken by the Department,
which shall be produced in this case through
an appropriate counter affidavit, personally
sworn by the Principal Secretary of the Human
Resources Development Department.
For convenience of learned G.A.-V,
let a copy of this order be served in his
office. Learned G.A.-V is requested to ensure
that the meeting is held and the appropriate
6
counter affidavit sworn by the Principal
Secretary of the Human Resources Development
Department is filed in the case within two
weeks.
Put up on 12th of October, 2010 within
first five cases.
Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)