Ram Nandan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 2 appointment to be their initial date of appointment as mentioned in the aforementioned notification. Further the respondents be directed to implement the time bound promotion given vide order dated

30.01.1990 after directing the respondents to recall their orders dated 17.04.1998 and 19.08.1999 respectively (whereby the time bound promotion granted to the petitioners has been recovered). (iv) For direction to the respondents authorities to consider initial date of appointment of petitioners as mentioned in take over notification of 1999 for the purpose of continuity in service and other post retiral benefits including pensionable service and fixation of pension etc.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has submitted that even when the school of the petitioner was taken over with effect from 24.2.1989 in terms of the Bihar Primary School Take Over Act, 1976, the petitioners having been become government servant on account of taking over will been entitled to count their previous service rendered in the private school for getting all sort of benefit as a government servant including seniority and length of service from the date of initial appointment in the private school i.e. 21.12.1970. In this regard, reliance has been placed by him on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shyam Kishore Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2007(2) PLJR 239 as also another judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal Jha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 3 2009(4) PLJR 396 as well as on government circular dated

2.12.1975.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners would not be entitled for counting their earlier service rendered in the private school either for the purpose of seniority or any consequential benefit in capacity of government servant, inasmuch as, their services were taken over only with effect from 24.2.1989. In this regard, learned counsel for the State has also pointed out that the petitioners virtually have been raising a stale issue by also indirectly challenging the order dated 17.4.1998 and 19.8.1999 after a lapse of more than 13 to 14 years.

5. Facts which are not in dispute which are significant to dispose of this writ application is that both the petitioners got appointed in a private school under the private management on

21.12.1970. The school of the petitioners was however taken over in terms of Section 3(4) of the 1976 Act which lays down as follows:- ^^3- jkT;&ljdkj }kjk xSj&ljdkjh izkjfEHkd fo|ky;ksa dk xzg.k fd;k tkukA …1‰ ftyk cksMZ] ftyk ifj’kn] uxjikfydk cksMZ vkSj iVuk uxj fuxe }kjk izcfU/kr izkjfEHkd fo|ky; rFkk foLrkj ,oa lq/kkj Ldhe ds v/khu [kksys x;s izkjfEHkd fo|ky; 1 tuojh] 1971 ls Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 4 jkT; ljdkj }kjk xzg.k dj fy;s x;s le>s tk;sxsaA …2‰ lgk;rk izkIr izkjfEHkd fo|ky;] ftudh izcU/k lfefr us fcuk fdlh “kÙkZ ds LosPNkiwoZd fo|ky; dk fu;U=.k ljdkj dks lkSi fn;k gS] ml rkfj[k ls jkT; ljdkj }kjk xzg.k fd;s tk;sxs] tks bl iz;kstukFkZ mi&/kkjk ¼4½ esa fufnZ’V ftyk lfefr }kjk vo/kkfjr dh tk;sxhA ¼3½ yksd ;k izkbosV miØeksa }kjk iz”kkflr izkjfEHkd fo|ky;] jkT;&ljdkj }kjk jkti= esa vf/klwpuk izdkf”kr djds ml rkjh[k ls xzg.k fd, tk;saxs tks vf/klwpuk esa fofuZfn’V dh tk;A …4‰ …d‰ mi&/kkjk …1‰ vkSj …3‰ esa mfYyf[kr izkjfEHkd fo|ky;ksa dks NksM+dj vU; izkjfEHkd fo|ky;ksa ds xzg.k fd;s tkus ds ckjs esa izR;sd ftys esa ,d ftyk lfefr gksxh] tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk ,sls fo|ky;ksa ds xzg.k fd;s tkus dh laHkkO;rk dh tkap djsxhA mDr ftyk lfefr esa fuEufyf[kr lnL; jgsaxs% (i) mi&fodklk;qDrA iz”kkld] ftyk i’kZn&v/;{k (ii) ftyk f”k{kk v/kh{kd&lfpo (iii) ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] (iv) ftyk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk] (v) lEc) vuqeaMy dk vuqeaMy f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] vkSj (vi) lEc) fo|ky; mi&fujh{kdA …[k‰ jkT; ljdkj bl izdkj xfBr ftyk lfefr ds dkfeZd esa le;≤ ij ifjorZu dj ldsxhA**

6. As a matter of fact, when Section 3(4) of the Act read Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 5 with Section 3(3) makes it clear that the school was to be taken over only after the decision of the State Government and such decision in the case of the school of the petitioners as well as for the petitioners was taken over on 24.2.1989, they cannot claim any benefit of service rendered by them in the private management from 21.12.1970 to 23.2.1989. This would become more clear from the provisions of Section 4 of the Act which reads as follows:- ^^4- xzg.k fd, tkus dk ifj.kkeA …1‰ /kkjk 3 ds v/khu jkT; ljdkj xzg.k fd;s x;s fo|ky;ksa ds LokfeRo ;k dCts dh lHkh py ;k vpy vkfLr;ka ;k lEifr;k¡] ftuds vUrxZr fo|ky; ls lEcfU/kr Hkwfe] Hkou] nLrkcst] iqLrd vkSj jftLVj Hkh gS] jkT; ljdkj dks vUrfjr jgsaxh vkSj muds LokfeRo ;k dCts esa vk xbZ le>h tk;sxhA …2‰ jkT; ljdkj }kjk xzg.k fd;s x;s fo|ky; esa in /kkj.k djusokyk izR;sd inkf/kdkjh] f”k{kd ;k vU; deZpkjh] jkT; ljdkj dks vUrfjr gks x;k le>k tk;xk rFkk og jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;Fkk vo/kkfjr inuke ls jkT; ljdkj dk inkf/kdkjh] f”k{kd ;k deZpkjh gks tk;xkA mldh inkof/k] ikfjJfed vkSj lsok&”kÙkZ ,oa fucU/ku ogha gksaxs] tks mDr fo|ky; ds xzg.k fd, tkus ds iwoZ Fks rFkk og mlh :i esa rc rd dk;Z djrk jgsxk] tc rd fd jkT; ljdkj mldh inkof/k ikfjJfed] lsok”kÙkZ ,oa fucU/ku esa lE;d ifjoÙkZu u dj nsA ¼3½ ftyk f”k{kk v/kh{kd] vuqe.My f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh&lg&uxjikfydk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa dk;Z djus ds fy;s izfrfu;qDr LFkkuh; fudk;ksa ds deZpkfj;ksa rFkk iVuk uxj fuxe dh f”k{kk iz”kk[kk esa dke djus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok,a jkT; ljdkj dks vUrfjr vkSj mlds }kjk Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 6 xzg.k dh xbZ le>h tk;sxh rFkk ,sls deZpkjh ljdkjh lsok ds fy;s viuk fodYi nsus ij bl vf/kfu;e ds izo(cid:217)kZu dh rkjh[k ls ljdkj lsod le>s tk;saxsA**

7. In view of the clear provision under Section 3 and 4 of the Act, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that their previous services rendered in the private management from 21.12.1970 to

23.2.1989 should be counted as a government servant for the purpose of giving seniority or any other benefit. As a matter of fact, the petitioners are also well aware of their position, inasmuch as, in the case of both the petitioners, they were granted time bound promotion under some erroneous impression by the District Superintendent of Education in the year 1997 by computing their earlier period of service but then when the issue was examined by the higher authorities including Regional Deputy Development of Education, Gaya and such time bound promotion was not found to be permissible and admissible, not only the benefit of time bound promotion was withdrawn but their salary was fixed by two separate orders dated 17.4.1998 and 19.4.1999 in case of petitioner nos. 1 & 2 respectively which reads as follows:- ^^dkk;kZy; ftyk f’k{kk v/kh{kd uoknkA dk;kZy;&vkns’k ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e/; fo|ky; eaMik ds f’k{kdksa dh lsok fo|ky; ds vf/kxzg.k 24-02- 09 ls dh x;h gS] ijurq lfefr }kjk fu;qfDr frfFk ls lsok dh x.kuk djrs gq;s 6-4-91 ls izFke dkyc} iznku dh x;h gSA ftls {ks=h; Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 7 mi f’k{kk funs’kd] ex/k izeaMy x;k ds Kkikad 11@xks0 fnukad 14- 3-89 ds vkyksd esa jn~n dj osru LFkfxr j[krs gq, bl :i esa vf/kd izkIr dh x;h jkf’k olwyh djus dh vkns’k bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 1394 fn0 24-2-97 ,oa Kkikad 2838 fn0 27-8-97 }kjk fn;k x;k gSA Jh jkeuUnu flag] l0f’k0 e0 fo0 eaMik dks ukjnhxat Fkkuk dkaM la0 56@96 ds vUrxZr fnukad 19-07-96 ls tsy pys tkus ds dkj.k bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 3555 fn0 26-9-96 }kjk fnukad 19-07- 96 ls fuyfEcr fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i buds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ugha fy;k tk ldrk gSA Jh flag tsy ls fjgk gksus dh frfFk 7-12--97 ls bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 773 fnukad 09-03-98 }kjk fuyEcu ls eqDr fd;k x;k gSA mDr ifjis{k esa Jh flag ls izkIr vH;kosnu ,oa layXu izek.k i= ij fopkjksijkUr ftudh ;ksX;rk 1977 ls Lukrd dh gS vkSj 25- 2-95 esa izkFkfed f’k{kd f’k{kk egkfo|ky;] ’ksj?kkVh }kjk izf’k{k.k dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gq, gS dks lsok vf/kxzg.k dh frFfk 24-2-9 ls foHkkxh; i=kad 998 fn0 7-6-95 ds vkyksd esa 1200&2000 dk osrueku Lohd‘r fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izf’k{k.k dh ijh{kk mrh.kZ gksus dh frfFk 25-2-95 ls eSfVzd izf’kf{kr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA bl dze esa f’k{kd dh fuEu :i esa la’kksf/kr osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkrk gSaA osrueku 1200&30&1380 b0ch0&3030&1800 b0ch0 40&1800 b0ch0&40&2040 24-2-89 dks 1200@& 90 dks 1230@& 91 dks 1260@& 92 dks 1290@& 93 dks 1320@& 94 dks 1350@& 95 dks 1380@& 96 dks 1410@& 97 dks 1440@& 98 dks 1470@& Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 8 vxyk okf"kZd osru o‘f} 24-02-99 Jh jke uUnu flag] l0f’k0 }kjk Qjojh 89 ls twu 96 rd dqy :0 11]670-33 :i;k vf/kd jkf’k Hkqxrku izkIr fd;s gS ftldh olqyh muds cdk;s foi= ls ,deqLr dj yh tk;A g0@& T;ksfr dqekj ftyk f’k{kk v/kh{kd Kkikad& 1279 uoknk] fnukad 17 vizsy] 98** dk;kZy; vkns’k bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 2778 fnukad 22-8-09] 2838 fn0 27-8-97 ,oa Kkikad 908 fn0 15-11-97 ds vkyksd esa vjktdh; e0 fo0 eaMik ds vkyksP; vof/k esa dk;Zjr f’k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr frfFk ls lsok dh x.kuk dj 1-4-81 ls izHkko ls izFke dkyc} izksUufr iznku dj fo|ky; ds jk"Vzh;dj.k dh frfFk 24-2-89 ls osru fu/kkZj.k dk ykHk iznku fd;k x;k gSA Jherh izehyk ’kekZ] iwoZ f’kf{kdk e0fo0 eaMik lEizfr izk0 fo0 caMik dkh Hkh bl izdkj dk ykHk iznku fd;k x;k gSA mDr ifjis{; esa Jherh ’kekZ ls izkIr izek.k i= lsok iqfLrdk ,oa vH;kosnu i= ij fopkjksijkUr ftudh ;ksX;rk jk"Vhz;dj.k dh frfFk ls eSfVzd vizf’kf{kr ,oa fo|ky; ds jk"Vhz;dj.k dh frfFk 25-2-95 ls eSfVzd izf’kf{kr dh gS dks Lohd‘r dkyc} izksUufr dks vkyksP; frfFk ls {kas=h; mi f’k{kk funs’kd ex/k izeaMy] x;k ds Kkikad 11Axks0A fnukad 14-3-97 ,oa funs’kd Aizk0 f’k0A fcgkj iVuk ds i=kad 793 fnukad 2-4-98 ,oa i=kad 1302 fnukad 16-6-98 ds vkyksd esa jn~n djrs gq, bl :i esa izkIr dh x;h jkf’k vf/kd jkf’k fd’rksa esa vfuok;Z :i ls olwy djus dk vkns’k f’kf{kdk ds bl ekg ds osru ls fn;k tkrk gSA e/; fo|ky; eaMik ds Hkqxrku iath ,oa iz/kkuk/;kid e/; fo|ky; eaMik }kjk rS;kj dh x;h fooj.kh ds vuqlkj Jherh ’kekZ Qjojh 89 ls ekpZ 97 rd dqy 55269-35 Aipku gtkj nks lkS mUgRrj :i;s iSrhl iSls vf/kd izkIr dh gS ftls 40 fdLrksa esa olwy Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 9 djus dk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gSA 1 viszy] 97 ls v/;ru vf/kd izkIr dh x;h jkf’k dk leatu 1-4-97 ls f’kf{kdk dks ns; vUrj osru dh jkf’k ls ,deqLr esa dj yh tk;sxhA f’kf{kdk Jherh ’kekZ fo|ky; jk"Vzh; dj.k dh frfFk ls fuEu :i esa osru izkIr djsaxhA 24-02-89 & 975@& 24-02-90 & 1000@& eSfVzd vizf’kf{kr dk osrueku 9725&1150&30&1540 24-02-91 & 1025@& 24-02-92 & 1050@& 24-02-93 & 1075@& 24-02-94 & 1100@& 25-02-95 & 1125@& 25-02-95 & 1200@& eSfVzd izf’kf{kr dk osrueku 25-02-96 & 1230@& 1200&30&1320&bZ0ch-&30&1560 bZ-ch- 40&1800&40&2040 25-02-97 & 1260@& 25-02-98 & 1290@& 25-02-99 & 1320@& blds foifjr izkIr dh x;h jkf’k dh laeftr fd;k tkuk gSA g0@& ’;ke ckcw jk; ftyk f’k{kk v/kh{kd] uoknkA Kkikad&828@ uoknk] fnukad 19 vxLr 99**

8. This order had also led to recovery of the excess salary drawn by the petitioners way back in the year 1999 but that was never challenged by the petitioners till filing of this writ application and that too in an indirect manner by seeking declaration as also praying for recall of the order dated 17.4.1998 Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 10 (Annexure-6) and 19.8.1999 (Annexure-7) in the case of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 respectively.

9. It thus becomes clear that the petitioners are virtually raising a stale issue and this writ application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

10. That apart, the principle of law is well settled, inasmuch as, in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Dev Datta Kaushal reported in 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 748 that on take over of the private educational institution, the earlier services rendered were not to be taken into consideration for any benefit including benefit of pension. As a matter of fact, when Dr. Dev Datta Kaushal , a Lecturer in M.R. College, Fazilka became the government servant in view of the take over of the school by the State Government on

30.6.1983 and had retired on October, 1989, he had claimed that the previous services rendered in the school should have been counted for granting him pension which he was denied on account of not completing the services for a period of 10 years as required in the government rules. When the writ application of Dr. Dev Datta Kaushal was dismissed by the learned single Judge but allowed by the Division Bench, the Supreme Court had set aside such order of the Division Bench by looking into the condition of take-over of the college and it was held that upon take over of the Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 11 college, they were treated to be teaching and non-teaching employees in the government service. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court had also held the claim of payment of pension of Dr. Dev Datta Kaushal for the aforesaid case (supra) only by taking into account that he had not completed the period of ten years of service for becoming a government servant.

11. This aspect of the matter was again gone into by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Harbans Singh Gill reported in (2000) 9 SCC 410 and the same principle in the case of Dr. Dev Datta Kaushal (supra) was followed.

12. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the circular of the Government dated 2.12.1975 which reads as follows:- ^^vkns”k la0 23&529&650 fnukad 2&12&75 dh izfrfyfiA vjktdh; ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa f”k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr frfFk D;k ekuh tk, bl fo’k; ij v/;{k us fuEukafdr fu.kZ; fy;k gSA ¼d½ fcgkj ek/;fed f”k{kk cksMZ }kjk ftl frfFk ls fo|ky; dh LFkkiuk dh vuqefr iznku dh tk,] ml frfFk dks fo|ky; esa dk;Zjr izf”kf{kr f”k{kdksa ds fy, ogh frfFk mudh lsok gsrq fu;qfDr frfFk ekU; gksxh] fdUrq ,ssls f”k{kdksa dk osru Hkqxrku fo|ky; dh ekU;rk] lEcU/kh i= fuxZeu dh frfFk ls gh 8&10&75‰ ds vUrxZr LFkkfir ,oa ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky;ksa ds fy, le>k tk,xkA iqjkus fu;e ds vUrxZr vkaf”kd vkSicfU/kd ,oa iw.kZ izLrkfod fo|ky;ksa ds fy, ogh fu;e ekU; jgsxk ftlds Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 12 vk/kkj ij vcrd osru fu/kkZj.k gksrk vk jgk gSA** also is wholly misconceived for two reasons. Firstly, this circular is in relation to take-over of the secondary school for which there was already a provision under the 1974Act for recognition of the school and transfer of the services of the teacher. In fact, when the 1980 Take-over Act came, it had made reference to 1974 Act and, thus, whatever was said by way of executive instruction in the circular dated 2.12.1975 being part of the secondary school take- over, not comparable with the take-over of the primary school under the 1975 Act, such circular cannot be made applicable. Secondly, in the case of the petitioners, there is a specific provision under Section 4 which has to be read with Section 3 of the 1975 Act and that will leave nothing for speculation that the services will be taken-over only with effect from the date the school become a government servant. As a matter of fact, it was on this premise that the earlier time bound promotion given to the petitioners by counting their earlier length of service of private school was withdrawn and they were also subjected to recovery. The petitioners in fact had also made no protest at that point of time in the year 1998 and 1999 and refunded the excess amount drawn by them and, therefore, now they cannot at the time of their retirement make out a case. Patna High Court CWJC No.18771 of 2012 (2) dt.20-08-2013 13

13. Similarly, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shyam Kishore Singh (supra) will also be of no avail, inasmuch as, from the fact of that case, it would again become clear that Shyam Kishore Singh was a teacher of a secondary school. As noted above, under the provision of take-over for the secondary school were entirely different. Yet again, in the case of Gopal Jha (supra), it would be clearly found from the factual narration recorded in paragraph no.3 that he too was a teacher in the High School in the district of West Champaran and, therefore, whatever was held was by virtue of the provision of Take-over Act, 1980 read with the earlier Act of 1975 in the case of secondary school, cannot be made ipso facto applicable in the case of the primary school.

14. Thus, In the light of the aforementioned discussions, it would become clear that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. This writ application, being wholly misconceived, is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-