Madan Mohan Singh v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Tapen Sen, J.:— Heard Mr. A.K Sahani, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. I Sen Choudhary, learned S.C III for the State. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in this case.

2. The undisputed facts of this case is that the post of Head Master in the concerned school was lying vacant from 15.5.1977 and the Petitioner started functioning as Head Master-ln-charge in that school from 15.7.1977 However, the grievance of the Petitioner is that after having moved the Patna High Court in various writ applications a notification was finally issued on 8.5.1992 (Annexure-2) by which the Government gave approval to the Petitioner and recognized him as Head Master from the date of issuance of the order. The claim of the Petitioner is that he should be given the status of Head Master right from the date he started functioning and the period rendered by him in the capacity of Head Master-ln-charge should also be taken into consideration. He, accordingly, moved C.W.J.C No. 1636 of 1993 (R) which was disposed off by the Division Bench on 20.8.1993 The Division Bench inter alia recorded as follows:

“The contention of the Petitioner is that in view of the fact that the posts had been vacant and the Petitioner has been performing his duties of Head master-ln-charge. His case for promotion against the said post should have been considered with retrospective effect. According to the Petitioner he has superannuated on 31.7.1993 In this situation, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the entire materials and pass necessary orders as to whether the Petitioner was entitled to promotion to retrospective effect or not and if so from what date ….”

(underlining by this Court).

3. It appears that pursuant to the aforementioned order passed by the Divi sion Bench, the Respondents passed the impugned order dated 25.3.1994 (Annexure- 4). By reason of the impugned order, it appears that the Director, Secondary Edu cation has merely reiterated and taken note of the Government's approval dated 20.11.1981 and has merely stated that the Petitioner should be given the benefit of promotion w.e.f 2.10.1980 but nothing has been said in relation to the period for which the Petitioner had been working in the status of Head Master-in-charge, i.e 15.7.1977 to 2.10.1980

4. From what has been stated above, it is apparent that what the Petitioner delivered to the State was a service although it was in capacity of an “Incharge Head Master”. When the Petitioner continuously rendered his serivces faithfully without any blemish, there is no reason why the Respondents should not have taken this aspect into consideration at the time of passing the order. It was perhaps on the basis of the aforesaid consideration that the Division Bench in the year 1993 gave opportunity to the Respondents in C.W.J.C No. 1636 of 1993 (R) vide order dated 20.8.1993 to decide this question once for all and in accordance with law but it appears that the Respondents have not acted strictly as per the observations of the Division Bench. What is more frustrating is that the Respondents did not even file any counter affidavit in this case. In that view of the matter this Court has no option but to once again remand the matter to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner in respect of the period of 1977-1980 indicated above and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Such a reasoned order must be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the convenience of all the parties and considering the fact that the State of Jharkhand has now come into existence, it would be appropriate for the Petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith copies of documents including a copy of this order before the Director, Secondary Education Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi so to enable him to do the needful in the matter in accordance with law.

5. With the aforementioned observa-tions and directions this Writ Application stands disposed off. After the above mentioned order had been dictated, Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, counsel for the Respondents made a request for supply of a copy of this order. Request granted. Office to do the needful.