The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of v. Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 2449 of 2008 1. Brajendra Mishra, son of Late Mukut Dhari Mishra, resident of Maidan Toli, P.O., P.S. and District Khunti 2. Baleshwar Pathak, son of Late Poshan Pathak, resident, P.O., P.S.- Torpa, District Khunit 3. Harendra Tiwari, son of Late Narbeshwar Tewary, resident of village Palhe Khurd, P.O. Nawdiha, P.S. Paton, District Palamau 4. Uday Krishna Dandpat, son of Late Ram Chandra Dandpat, resident of Khunti Toli, TORPA Road, P.O. P.S. and District Khunti 5. Lepa Hemrum, son of Late Dena Hemrum, resident of village Bala, P.O. Rai Senla, P.S. and District Khunti 6. Patras Dhan, son of Late Lev Dhan, resident of village Bala, P.O. Tarta, P.S. and District khunti 7. Zacharios Topno, son of Late Masih Das Topno, resident of Diyankela, P.O., P.S. Torpa, District Khunit 8. Teresa Soreng, daughter of Late Antony Soreng, resident of P.O., P.S. Torpa, District Khunti 9. Alice Surin, daughter of Late Samuel Surin, resident of village Futkal Toli, Dodma, P.O. P.S. Torpa, District Khunti 10. Bernadetta Ekka, Daughter of Late Jamesh Ekka, resident of Tunki Toli, P.O., P.S. Bariyatu, District Ranchi 11. Ramdhan Manjhi, son of Late Raghunath Manjhi, resident of P.O., P.S. Torpa, District Khunti 12. Scholartica Topno, daughter of Late Swanislas Topno, resident of, P.O.-P.S. and District Khunti 13. Sushila Tiru, W/o Late Carnus Hemrum, resident, P.O., P.S. and District Khunti 14. Jagan Nath Mishra, son of Late Gopi Nath Mishra, village, P.O. Petitioners Marcha, P.S. Rania, District Khunit … … 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Versus Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources and Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director (Madnhyamik Shiksha), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The District Education Officer, Khunti 5. The Finance Secretary, Department of Finance, State of Jharkhand … Respondents … With W.P.(S) No. 4965 of 2005 1. Brajendra Mishra, son of Late Mukut Dhari Mishra, Secretary, Jharkhand Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh, Ranchi District Branch, resident of Maidan Toli, P.O., P.S. Khunti, District Khunti. 2 2. Baleshwar Pathak, son of Late Posan Pathak, Secretary, Khunti Sub Division, Madhyamik Sikshak Sangh, St. Joseph High School, resident of Torpa, P.O. & P.S. Torpa, District Ranchi 3. Awdhesh Jha, son of Kapil Deo Jha, St. Joseph Girls’ High School, P.O. & P.S. Hulhundu, Ranchi 4. Daud Horo, Son of Samuel Horo, High School Marcha, P.O. & P.S. Ranja, District Ranchi 5. Krishna Kishore Mahto, son of Bishnu Charan Mahto, St. Anne’s Girls’ High School, Torpa, P.O. & P.S. Torpa, District Ranchi. 6. Ram Dhan Manjhi, son of Late Raghunath Manjhi, St. Joseph High School, Torpa, P.O. & P.S. Torpa, District Ranchi. 7. Zecharius Topno, son of Masih Das Topno, Nirmala High School, P.O. & P.S. Torpa, District Ranchi. 8. Smt. Domanika Bodra, wife of Sri Albert Bheggra, St. Anne’ High School, Torpa, P.O. & P.S. Torpa, District Ranchi. … … Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Versus Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The District Education Officer, Ranchi … --- … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Respondents --- : Mr. Vijoy Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate : Ms. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, Advocate : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasan, Advocate --- 33/17.01.2023 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 1. 2. W.P.(S) No. 4965 of 2005 was filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to give to the teaching and non-teaching staffs of Government recognized Minority High School the scale of pay revised in the year 1996 at par with the teaching and non-teaching staffs of Government High Schools/Government Taken Over High Schools and to give such benefit with retrospective date i.e. with effect from 1996 with all consequential benefits. In this writ petition, a challenge was also made to the decision of the Respondents dated 17.09.2004 and 13.04.2005 whereby the respondents declined to give benefit of 6th Pay revision (pay revision of the year 1996) to the Teaching and Non- Teaching Staffs of Government recognized Minority Schools. 3 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents took decision to give benefit of 6th pay revision with effect from 01.01.1996 but decided to give financial benefits from 01.04.2007 and also decided that the persons retired prior to 01.04.2007 will not be entitled for any benefit of pay revision. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, another writ petition being W. P. (S) No. 2449 of 2008 was filed challenging the aforesaid decision of the respondents taken in the year 2007 and following prayers were made: - “That the present application is on behalf of the petitioners, who are retired Assistant Teacher of Government Recognized Minority school, having retired between 01-01-1996 to 31-03- 2007, for: - (A) Issuance of a writ of certiorari or in nature thereof for quashing/cancelling/rescinding the part of the order directions contained: (i) In paragraph 3 of memo no. 2315 dt. 20.08.2007, whereby though it was decided to give benefit of pay revision with effect from 01.01.1996 but financial benefits will be given only with effect from 01.04.2007, thereby depriving the persons- Assit. Teachers retiring between 01.01.1996 to 31.03.2007 from said benefits of pay revision. (ii) In paragraph ‘Chha’ of the order contained in memo no. 2728 dt. 26.09.2007 whereby it was said that there cannot be any question of revision of pay of those persons who have retired before 01.04.2007; (B) Issuance of a writ of mandamus or in nature thereof commanding/directing the respondents to give the benefits of pay revision to the petitioners with effect from 01.01.1996 and consequently revise their pension and other pensionary benefits and also to pay all the arrears with interest within time fixed by this Hon’ble Court.” Foundational facts 5. Petitioner no. 1 in W.P.(S) No. 4965 of 2005 is the Secretary of Jharkhand Madhyamik Shikashak Sangh of Ranchi District. The petitioner no. 2 is a teacher in St. Joseph High School Torpa and is also Sub Divisional Secretary of Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh, Khunti. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have moved before this Court in their representative capacity on behalf of teaching and non-teaching staffs of Government Recognized Minority High Schools. The petitioner 4 nos. 2 to 8 are teachers of different Government Recognized Minorities Schools situated within Khunti Sub Division. 6. The petitioner no. 1 in W.P.(S) No. 2449 of 2008 is a retired teacher and President of Khunti Pensioner’s Samaj, District – Khunti and also District Secretary of Teacher’s Association, Ranchi -cum- Khunti. Petitioner nos. 2 to 12 and 14 (except petitioner no. 13 who is the wife of the original petitioner no. 13) in W.P.(S) No. 2449 of 2008 are retired teachers of Government Recognized Minority Schools who were working on sanctioned/approved/recognized units in the recognized minority schools and were getting their salary from the Government before their retirement. The retirement details of Petitioner nos. 2 to 12 and 14 as well as original petitioner no. 13 are as under: Petitioner Name Date of Retirement no. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Baleshwar Pathak Harendra Tiwari 30.08.2006 28.02.2003 Uday Krishna Dandpat 31.12.2006 Lepa Hemrum Patras Dhan Zach Topno Teresla Soreng Alice Surin Bernadetta Ekka Ramdhan Manjhi 30.06.2001 31.10.2003 31.05.2004 29.02.2000 30.06.2000 31.12.2001 28.02.2005 Scholartica Topno 10.05.2003 Carnus Hemrum 08.02.2002 Jagan Nath Mishra 31.03.2004 7. The sequence of events are as under: - a. Prior to the year 1980 there were 4 types of High Schools in the State of Bihar, viz (a) Government High Schools, (b) High Schools run by Managing Committee, (c) High Schools run by Minorities, and (d) Proprietary High Schools. 5 b. Some of the High Schools run by minorities are duly recognized by the State Government. In such recognized minority High Schools, the State Government pays the salary etc. to those teachers and non-teaching staffs, who are duly qualified, whose selection are approved by Vidyalaya Sewa Board and who work on sanctioned posts in the school. The State Government makes this payment because it has/had imposed various types of controls and restriction on the school managing committee, such as educational standard/syllabus, qualification of teachers, process of appointment and retirement age of teachers/non- teaching staffs, and important and foremost restriction on realization of large amount as fees from the students.. c. The State Government took control of Non- Government High schools under provisions of Bihar Non- Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act 1981 (herein after to be referred as the Act of 1981). d. The teaching and non-teaching staffs of Government Recognized Minority High Schools were also being paid their salary etc. “at par” with the teachers of Government High Schools and Taken Over Non-Government High School. e. Section 18 of the aforesaid Act of 1981 requires that the Managing Committee of the Minority School will appoint only those teachers who are having the same qualification as required for teachers of Government Secondary Schools. The appointment of the teachers in the minority schools has also to be approved by Schools Service Commission. f. Prior to 02.10.1980, teaching and non-teaching staffs of recognized Minority Schools were paid their salary and other allowances at par with Government High Schools and Non- Government High Schools. The State Government vide letter contained in memo no.-5202 dated 24.05.1980 decided to pay the teachers of Government Schools interim relief as pay revision which was though due, but there was delay in taking decision by the Government. After 02.10.1980, when 6 management and control of several Non-Government High Schools were taken over by the Government, then teaching and non-teaching staffs of taken over/Nationalized High Schools also started enjoying similar benefits as were available to the teachers of the Government Schools. g. After taking over of the control and management of Non- Governmental High Schools on 02.10.1980, the State Government vide letter no.-2270 dated 30.10.1980 [Annexure- 1 to W.P.(S) No. 2449 of 2008] provided same benefits to the teachers of taken over Non-Government High Schools as was being provided to the teachers of Government High Schools. h. Thereafter, the Government took a resolution to give same and similar benefits to teaching and non-teaching staffs of recognized Minority High Schools as was being given to teaching and non- teaching staffs of Government High Schools and taken over/Nationalized High Schools. The said resolution of the government is contained in memo no.-179 dated 22.12.1981 [Annexure-2 to W.P.(S) No. 2449 of 2008]. i. In the year 1986, there was pay revision for teaching and non- teaching staffs of Government Schools and Taken Over/ Nationalized High Schools. Subsequently, the benefits of pay revision of 1986 was also provided by the government to all teaching and non-teaching staffs of recognized Minority High School. j. Further, pay revision became due w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to all class of teachers/ non-teaching staff of Govt. School, taken over Govt. Schools and recognized Minority Schools. However, due to delay in taking final decision by the State Government, it was decided to give "interim relief" of Rs. 100.00 at flat rate to all teachers/non-teaching staffs of Govt. Schools and Taken Over School from the year 1996. Due to further delay in taking decision, the State Government further granted “interim relief” of 10% of basic pay+ Rs. 100.00 granted earlier. The benefit of “interim relief” was also given for the third year again to the extent of 10% of basic pay+10% of basic pay + Rs. 100.00. 7 k. In the year 1999, the State Government finally settled the claim of pay revision for school teachers and non-teaching staffs of Govt. Schools and Taken Over Govt. Schools making it effective with effect from 01.01.1996, but encashment and/or financial benefits were allowed with effect from 01.04.1997, however, interim relief allowed for the period before 01.04.1997 was merged with revised scale of pay. l. However, the teachers/non-teaching staffs of Govt. recognized minorities schools were not granted the benefits of pay revision which was made applicable in cases of Govt./Taken Over Schools w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and given financial benefits only with effect from 01.04.1997. m. Representatives/association of teachers/ non-teaching staffs of the Govt. Recognized Minorities Schools approached the authorities of the Education Department and /or Government, but as per the petitioners, no action was taken by the respondents in this regard. n. In the meantime, the then State of Bihar was reorganized and divided into two States namely 'The State of Bihar' and 'The State of Jharkhand' with effect from 15.11.2000 under the provisions of The Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. It is
Decision
specifically mentioned in the writ petition that all teaching and non-teaching staffs of Govt. Recognized Minority Schools who remained within the state of Bihar after 15.11.2000, were also given benefits of pay revision as given to the teachers and non- teaching staffs of Govt. Schools and taken over schools. In the State of Jharkhand, the petitioners and/ or their representatives approached the Respondents time to time for the aforesaid benefits of pay revision etc. with effect from 01.01.1996 as given to the teachers/ non-teaching staffs of Govt. Schools and taken over schools, but no decision was taken in favour of such persons. o. It is the specific case of the petitioners in the writ petition that the State of Jharkhand, arbitrarily, instead of giving benefits of pay revision etc. to the teaching and non-teaching staffs of 8 recognized minority schools also, decided to withdraw the benefits of interim-relief(s) which was being given to them with the scale applicable w.e.f. 1986. p. Thereafter, some of the petitioners individually as well as through representative of their association moved before this Court in W.P.(S) 2050 of 2002. In the said case, State Government failed to file any counter affidavit in spite of several adjournments. Finally, this Court vide order dated 21.07.2003 [Annexure-3 to W.P.(S) No. 2449 of 2008] disposed of the said case with a direction to the petitioners of the said case to file a representation before the Secretary, Human Resources Development department, Govt. of Jharkhand who was directed to take a decision in the matter. This Court also directed the Respondent not to withdraw the benefits of interim relief(s) which the petitioners of the said case were getting. q. Due to non-compliance of the order dated 21.07.2003 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2050 of 2002, a contempt case being Cont. (Civil) No. 152 of 2004 was also filed. In the said contempt application, a show cause was filed on behalf of the State Government enclosing the decision that the benefits of pay revision (6th Pay Revision) would not be given to the teaching and non-teaching staffs of Government Recognized Minorities Schools. The said contempt Case was disposed of on or about 14.06.2006. However, this Court, vide order dated 22.07.2005 passed in I. A. No. 1330 of 2005 filed in W.P.(S) No.2050 of 2002, permitted the petitioners in the said writ application to challenge the decision of the State Government whereby benefit of Pay revision (6th Pay revision) was refused. Accordingly, Writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4965 of 2005 was filed. r. In the meantime, during the pendency of the aforesaid Writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4965 of 2005, the State Government, vide resolution contained in memo no. 2315 dt. 20.08.2007 [Annexure 5 to W.P.(S) No. 2449 of 2008], 9 resolved to give benefits of 6th pay revision to the teachers and non-teaching staffs of Government Recognized Minority Schools in the light of earlier resolution of the Government being Resolution no. 660 dt. 08.02.1999 [Annexure 4 to W.P.(S) No. 2449 of 2008]. s. The said resolution no.-2315 dt. 20.08.2007 says that the Government has decided to give benefits of 6th pay revision with effect from 01.01.1996 as being given to Government Servants. However, in impugned paragraph 2 of said resolution no.-2315 dt. 20.08.2007, it was stated that Government has decided to give financial benefits with effect from 01.04.2007. t. In pursuance of the Resolution no.-2315 dt. 20.08.2007, the Respondent - Secretary issued an order to all Deputy Commissioners /District Education Officers to fix the pay of the teachers and teaching staffs of minority school who were working on or after 01.04.2007. The said letter clearly stated in impugned paragraph "Cha" that there cannot be any question of fixation of pay of the retired employees. A Photocopy of the order/letter contained in Memo No.-2728 dt. 26.09.2007 is annexed as Annexure-6 to W.P.(S) No. 2449 of 2008. u. The petitioners came to know that in the year 2004 the authorities of the State of Jharkhand have prepared a comparative detail with respect to pay revisions between Govt. School Teachers and Minority School Teachers. The Said comparison shows that similarly situated teachers, who remained in the State of Bihar after 15.11.2000 have been/are being given benefits of 6th pay revision. 8. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the teachers of aided minority schools have been discriminated against the teachers of government school and government taken over school in the matter of giving benefit of pay revision. He further submits that there is discrimination between those teachers, who were still in service and those who had already retired prior to 01.04.2007. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mariyam Tirkey Vs. State of Jharkhand 10 and Ors. 2014 (1) JLJR 465 and has referred to para 18 and 19 which deals with the entire scheme of the Act namely The Bihar Non- Government Secondary School (Taking over Management and Control) Act, 1981. 9. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the chart which has been annexed in W.P. (S) No. 4965/2005, the various pay revisions which have been granted to the government teachers from time to time, were also made applicable to the teachers of the teaching and non-teaching of the minority institutions with effect from the same date on which they were granted such benefit. He submits that the decision has been taken with regard to giving benefit of 6th pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996 but financial benefit has been granted w.e.f. 01.01.2007. The learned counsel submits that fixation of cut-off date for financial benefit as 01.01.2007 is arbitrary to the extent that the financial benefit should have been extended to the petitioners with effect from the same date as was given to the government teachers and the teachers of government taken over schools. The learned counsel has further submitted that the persons who had retired prior to 31.03.2007 have been totally deprived of the 6th pay revision. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Frank Anthony Public School vs. Union of India & Others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 707. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that all the teaching and non- teaching staff of Govt. Recognized Minority Schools are entitled to same pay scale and financial benefits as that of government schools / taken over government schools and by virtue of impugned action and orders they have been arbitrarily deprived from the financial benefits from 01.04.1997 and have been provided the financial benefits from 01.04.2007. A further discrimination has been made by totally depriving the persons retired prior to 01.04.2007 from the benefits of pay revision. It is the case of the petitioners that the State Government is bound to treat the petitioners working in Govt. Recognized Minority Schools against sanctioned post and other similarly situated teaching and non-teaching staff “At par" with the teachers and non-teaching staff of Govt. Schools/Taken over schools. 11 11. It has been submitted that the order dated 30.09.1988 passed in C.W.J.C. 1338 of 1987 (R) [Annexure- 7 to W.P.(S) No. 2449 of 2008] shows that all aided Minority School Teachers in Bihar are entitled to get same and similar benefits as the teachers of Government Schools are getting. 12. The petitioners have submitted that there was no laches or negligence on their part and, in fact, they have been demanding from the State Government the benefits of pay revision "At par" with Govt. School Teachers, but it was only due to laches and delay on the part of the State Government in taking the decision and in-action of the State Government, the petitioner and several others similarly situated persons have been deprived of the benefits of pay revision. They submit that action of the State Government in withdrawing the interim relief(s) in the year 2002 and giving financial benefits of pay revision only with effect from 01.04.2007 i.e after 11 year 3 months is discriminatory, malicious and bad in law. Arguments of the Respondents. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the fixing of the cut-off date with regard to extending the benefit of 6th pay revision to the petitioners is essentially a matter of policy and as per the counter-affidavit, there were financial constrains in extending the benefit to the petitioners with effect from the same date as were extended to other government teachers. The learned counsel has further submitted that the scope of interference in the matter of policy decision of the State Government is limited. However, during the course of hearing he has fairly submitted that pursuant to order dated 13.04.2022, wherein the respondents were directed to produce the decision of the Government dealing with the financial condition of the State and also a copy of the decision making that the financial benefit will be given to the teachers of recognized minority school w.e.f. 01.04.2007 and the deliberation of the Government in connection thereto has not been specifically brought on record by filing any supplementary counter affidavit, though a number of supplementary counter affidavits have been filed after 13.04.2022. 12 Findings of this court. 14. The foundational facts and the sequence of events as mentioned in above paragraphs are not in dispute. 15. It is also not in dispute that the salary of those teaching and non-teaching staffs in government recognized minority schools who are working on sanctioned post are being paid by the Government by way of grant-in-aid. 16. The following issues fall for consideration before this court: - a. Whether the petitioners/members of the Association of the petitioners, who are employed against sanctioned post in Government aided minority schools, are entitled to equal treatment in the matter of pay scale/effective date of pay scale when compared to their counter parts, employed in government school/ government aided schools /schools taken over by the government. b. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, then the further point for consideration would be as to- Whether the respondents have discharged the burden to affirmatively establish the rationale principle on which the classification to give differential treatment between those appointed in aided minority school and those appointed in government school/government aided schools/ schools taken over by the government? Point no (a) 17. This court finds that the matter of parity in pay scale between those who are appointed as teaching/non-teaching staffs in government aided minority school against sanctioned post and those appointed in government school/government aided schools has been subject matter of a number of writ petitions filed before Hon’ble Patna High Court from time to time both prior to and after bifurcation of the State of Bihar in the year 2000. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Division bench of this court in the case of Mariyam Tirkey Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2014 (1) JLJR 465 the issue was – “Whether the teachers employed in non- government aided / minority schools can avail the benefit of leave encashment or not is the question falling for consideration in these writ petitions.” The point has also been considered by this court in the judgement reported in the case of Mariyam Tirkey Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2014 (1) JLJR 465 wherein the relevant statutory provisions with 13 regard to grant of recognition to minority educational institutions, their management and control including appointment of teachers etc. has been considered in para 18 and 19 of the said judgement which are quoted as under: - 18. The above contention does not merit acceptance. The appointment of teachers in governed by Chapter 5 of the Compendium of Circulars of Minority & Public High Schools. Section 2(c) of Bihar Non Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 provides for recognition of minority secondary schools. Under section 2(c), Minority Secondary School means a secondary school which has been established by a minority community based upon either on religion or language, and which is managed by the minority community and has been declared and recognized as a minority school by the State Government. The State Government under section 18(2) of this Act, by a notification, grants recognition to a school as a minority secondary school which has been established by a minority community on the basis of religion or language for the purposes of meeting the educational requirement and for the protection of culture of their section and the prescribed condition of recognition. Subsection 3 of Section 18 makes provisions for management and control of the minority secondary schools. Section 18(3) (a) prescribes that every minority secondary school shall have a managing committee registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 am shall have written bye-laws relating to its constitution and function Sub-section (3) clause the prescribed (b) qualification laid down by the State Government for the teachers of the nationalized secondary schools and within the number of sanctioned posts, the managing committee of the minority secondary schools shall appoint the teacher with the concurrence of the School Service Board constituted under Section 10 of the Act thereof provides that according fulfils to it 19. Provisions of the aforesaid Act have also been adopted and followed by the Successor State of Jharkhand after us creation on bifurcation of the parent State of Bihar. The School Service Board has not been constituted in the State. It is the Directorate of Secondary Education which is the authority which grants approval to such appointment of teacher. Under the scheme of the Act, and the Circular issued from time to time by the State Government, the appointment of teacher in a minority school is to be made by a Selection Committee the representative of the Education Department shall be there. The appointment of a teacher selected through such process, is subject to the approval of the District Superintendent of in which 14 Education and also the Director of Secondary Education of the Government of Jharkhand. On the recommendation of the District Superintendent of Education, the Director, Higher Education, after scrutiny of the compliance of the necessary norms as laid down and on being satisfied, approves the preposition statement and fixation of salary of such a teacher of minority school. Only upon such approval, does the State Government grant aid for payment of salary and other service benefits to the teacher concerned. At the same time, rules relating to the condition of the teachers of minority schools, are to be based upon the principles of natural justice and prevailing law and are also to be sent to the State Government as provided under section 18(3)(c) of the Act. In the aforesaid scheme recognition of minority secondary school under the Act of 1981 and approval of appointment of teachers and further fixation of their salary and grant-in-aid, object and purpose of the issuance of the Circular dated 20th February 1990, is to be appreciated.” 18. The Hon’ble Division bench in the case of Mariam Tirkey (supra) has held in para 17 that- “17…….. when pay parity including all allowances are given to the employees working in non-governmental aided minority schools, the benefit of leave encashment for the unavailed leave to the credit of the employee cannot be denied.” The petitioners were found entitled to the relief. 19. The aforesaid judgement also reveals that the human resources development department of the then state of Bihar passed a resolution no. 237 dated 20.02.1990 regarding salary, allowances and other facilities to the teaching and non-teaching staffs of non-government aided minority primary/middle /secondary schools and also recognized Sanskrit schools and madarsas. As per the said resolution, teaching and non-teaching staffs working in non-government aided minority primary/middle /secondary schools shall be entitled in addition to salary, the same allowances as house rent allowance, urban compensatory allowance etc. as are available to the teaching and non- teaching staff of government schools. The translated version of the said notification dated 20.02.1990 has also been recorded in the said judgement. 20. Apart from the aforesaid circular dated 20.02.1990 it is important to consider the two circulars annexed with the writ petition dated 30.10.1980 and dated 22.12.1981. From perusal of the circular 15 dated 30.10.1980 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2449 of 2008 it is clear that after taking over of the control and management of non-government High schools on 02.10.1980, the State government vide letter No. 2270 dated 30.10.1980 provided the same benefit to the teachers of taken over Non-government High School as was being provided to the teachers of Government High schools. It further appears from the decision contained in memo No. 179 dated 22.12.1981 (Annexure-2) that the government had taken a resolution to give same and similar benefit to teaching and non-teaching staffs of recognized minority schools as was being given to teaching and non-teaching staffs of Government High Schools and taken over/nationalized schools. Considering the aforesaid three circulars dated 30.10.1980, 22.12.1981 and 20.02.1990 read with the judgement passed in the case of Mariyam Tirkey Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2014 (1) JLJR 465 there can be no doubt that there has been a conscious decision of the state while regulating the management and control of the minority school to give parity in the matter of pay scale and other benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staffs in the minority schools working against sanctioned posts as compared to those working in government schools and government aided schools, even though the teaching and non-teaching staff of the minority schools are not government servants . 21. Apart from the above, there are a number of judicial pronouncements with regards to the parity in pay scale / parity in the matter of extending benefits of revision of pay scales for teaching and non-teaching staff of minority schools/ aided schools / government schools. Some of such decisions are as under: - A. In CWJC No. 1338 of 1987 (R) (Aided and Minorities Primary Teachers’ Association Jamshedpur and another versus State of Bihar) [ Annexure- 7 to the present writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2449 of 2008], the petitioners had prayed for a direction to the respondent State to give them all the benefits that the teachers in government primary schools were getting. It was the specific case of the petitioners in the said case that all the teachers of aided minority primary schools in Bihar appointed against sanctioned post were entitled to get the same and similar benefit as that of 16 the teachers of government schools. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.09.1988 with following direction: - “In view of the fact noticed above, the petitioners must succeed in this application and it is held that teachers of all aided minority primary schools shall be entitled to all benefits including difference of pay and arrears according to 3rd and 4th pay revision committee which teachers of government schools are getting.” B. In another judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case reported in 1997 0 Supreme (Pat) 691 (Madhav Mahaseth and others versus State of Bihar and others) passed in CWJC No. 5336 of 1996 decided on 19.09.1997 filed by the Assistant teachers of Government aided middle school and one retired peon. The writ petition was filed against the resolution No. 3268 dated 05.11.1993 issued by the Secretary, Department of Primary, Secondary and Mass Education, Government of Bihar, Patna so far as the cut-off date fixed for the purpose of payment of arrear of salary is concerned. The narration of facts of the aforesaid judgment clearly reflects that it was an admitted position that the state government earlier fixed scale of pay of teachers and other employees of such aided middle school providing same scale of pay as provided to teachers and other employees of government middle school. Subsequently on recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Committee/Fitment Committee, the scale of pay of state government employees including teachers and peons of government middle school were revised by Finance Department Resolution dated 18.12.1989 and such revision was made effective from 01.01.1986. However, with respect to arrears of salary, it was stipulated in Resolution dated 18.12.89, that the arrears of salary shall be paid to state government employees, including the teachers and peons of middle school w.e.f. 01.05.89 though the fixation of pay will be made w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Subsequently, the State Government decided to revise the scale of pay of teachers and other employees of aided primary/middle school in parity with the scale of pay provided to teachers and other employees of schools of the State Government to implement the decision of 5th Pay Revision Committee/Fitment Committee. This was done by the Resolution impugned dated 5.11.1993. By the said resolution, while the same pay scale was provided to teachers and other employees of aided primary/middle school like the teachers and other employees of government primary/middle school, but for the purpose of arrear of salary, the effective date was fixed as 01.04.1993 instead of 01.03.1989. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners of the said case had preferred the writ petition so that they may also be paid arrears of salary w.e.f. 17 01.03.1989 after fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The State government had contested the matter. The said writ petition being CWJC No. 5336 of 1996 was decided on 19.09.1997, inter alia, by relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others versus State of Haryana and Others reported in AIR 1988 SC 1663 holding that the pay scale and other emoluments of teachers of aided private schools must be in parity with the teachers of government school. The said judgment was subsequently clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others versus State of Haryana and Others reported in AIR 1990 SC 968. The Hon’ble Patna High Court ultimately held that the petitioners of the said case and other similarly situated teachers and employees of aided primary/middle school are also entitled for revised pay scale of which fixation was to be made w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and arrears of salary to be paid w.e.f. 01.03.1989 and follow up directions were also issued. The operative portion of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5336 of 1996 in paragraph 10,11 and 12 are quoted as under:- “10. The case of these petitioners being similar to the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh (supra), I set aside the portion of the impugned resolution dated 5.11.93, by which it has been ordered to pay monetary benefits to the teachers and other employees of aided primary/middle schools with effect from 1.4.93. I hold that the petitioners and other similarly situated teachers and employees of aided primary/middle schools are entitled for revised scale of pay, of which fixation is to be made with effect from 1.1.1986 and arrears of salary is to be made with effect from 1.3.1989. The respondents are, accordingly, directed to fix the salary of the petitioners and other - teaching and non-teaching employees of aided schools in the revised scale of pay, in terms with resolution dated 5.11.93, with the arrears of salary with effect from 1.3.1989. This order is to be complied by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order with respect to these petitioners and all, similarly situated teaching and non- teaching employees of different aided primary/middle schools. 11. So far as individual grievance of the petitioners are concerned, they may move before the appropriate authority with respect to the same. 12. The writ petition observations/directions.” the aforementioned is allowed, with C. The aforesaid judgement dated 19.09.1997 passed in CWJC No. 5336 of 1996 (supra) was challenged in LPA No. 1431 of 1998 which has been dismissed vide judgement dated 10.09.2007, a copy of which has been forwarded to this court by the learned Registrar General of Hon’ble Patna High Court vide covering letter dated 12.01.2023 which is kept in the records of this case. 18 D. In another judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High court in CWJC No. 7139 of 2004 decided on 28.10.2010 (Bihar Minorities/Aided Primary Teachers Association, Patna versus the State of Bihar), a direction was sought upon the respondent authorities of the State of Bihar to grant monetary benefit of revision of 5th and 6th pay scales to the teachers of Aided Minority Schools also w.e.f. the date and in the same manner such benefits were granted to the teachers of other aided schools. The contention of the petitioner was that the teachers of aided minority schools were allowed 5th Pay Revision and 6th Pay Revision, but the monetary benefit of the same were made admissible to them from subsequent dates though it was made admissible to the teachers of other aided schools and teachers of nationalized schools. The monetary benefit of 5th pay Revision which was implemented from 01.01.1986 was granted to the teachers of nationalized schools from 01.04.1989 whereas the same has been granted to the teachers of aided minority schools w.e.f. 31.03.1993 by Government Resolution No. 3268 dated 05.11.1993. Similarly, monetary benefit of 6th Pay Revision which was implemented from 01.01.1996 was granted to the teachers of nationalized schools from 01.04.1997, whereas the same was granted to the teachers of Aided minority Schools w.e.f. 01.07.2005 by resolution No. 470 dated 04.03.2006 issued by the government of Bihar. It was the specific case of the petitioners of that case that such action on the part of the respondent-State of Bihar was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was also the specific case that once the aided schools have been equated with nationalized schools for granting them 5th Pay Revision and 6th Pay Revision, there could not be any justification to grant of monetary benefits of such pay revision with effect from different dates. The petitioners of the said case had, interalia, relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court reported in