1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur, PO and PS Bistupur v. Swaran Kaur, w/o late K.S. Saggu, r/o 4 Sura Bhawan Area, South Park, PO
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI LPA No. 223 of 2024 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur, PO and PS Bistupur, District East Singhbhum 3.The Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chotanagpur Division, PO, PS and District Ranchi 4.The Director, Primary Education, MDI Building, PO and PS Jagarnathpur, …Appellants District Ranchi Versus Swaran Kaur, w/o late K.S. Saggu, r/o 4 Sura Bhawan Area, South Park, PO and PS Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum ----- …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR -------- For the Appellant-State For the Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate -------- Order No. 04 / Dated: 27th June 2024 The State of Jharkhand has challenged the order passed in WP(S) No. 5954 of 2009 by which the order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on 2nd April 2008 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand for taking a decision whether or not to pay salary and post-retiral
Decision
benefits to the writ petitioner. 2. In the order dated 31st August 2017 passed in WP(S) No. 5954 of 2009, the writ Court held as under: “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I find that the facts are undisputed in this case. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed after following due process of law. The appointment letter was issued by the competent authority on 24.10.1994, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner has been appointed from 1.11.1994. Thus, for all practical purposes, the petitioner is deemed to be appointed from 1.11.1994. Admittedly the petitioner has obtained B.Ed. degree from Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta on 09.05.1994. On the date of obtaining B.Ed. degree, N.C.T.E. Act was not in force. Thus, there was no necessity for Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta, to take affiliation from the N.C.T.E. As the N.C.T.E. Act came into force from 01.07.1995. In the case of Sarbani Bose Vs. The State of Jharkhand & others (W.P.(S) No. 5412 of 2005), this Court has held that N.C.T.E. Act of 1993 came into force since 1st July, 1995 and after six months thereafter i.e. after 1st January, 1996 no institution, offering a course of training in teachers education, can run the institute without prior recognition by the National Council for Teachers Education. In the said case of Sarbani Bose (supra), the petitioner obtained degree from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Calcutta in the year 1992. This Court held that the degree obtained in the year 1992 is absolutely valid and has reinstated the petitioner with all consequential benefits after setting aside the order of the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand. The case of the petitioner is some what similar to the case of Sarbani Bose (supra). This petitioner not only obtained B.Ed. degree prior to 01.07.1995 and in fact was also appointed prior to that date. Then it cannot be said that the petitioner did not possess a valid degree.v g So far as the ground of overage of the petitioner is concerned, I find that there is no maximum age limit for appointment of the teacher in the minority aided institution. Letter no. 12/V8-0728 Shi.-25, dated 10.1.86, relates to the minority aided institutions. It has been prescribed in the said letter that there is no upper age limit for appointing a teacher in the minority aided institution. The only embargo is that the teacher should be major. Thus, as per the said Circular since there is no upper age limit for appointment of teacher in the minority aided institution, there was no necessity for the District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur to write a letter praying to relax age of the petitioner on the ground that she was overage. I find that the service of the petitioner was already approved on 10.07.1995 with effect from 01.11.1994. Thus for all practical purposes the appointment of the petitioner is to be reckoned from 01.11.1994, which is much prior to the date of coming into force of N.C.T.E. Act. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents in relation to the order passed by this Court in the case of Kalpana Lodhiya, wherein the case of this petitioner was discussed, I find that the petitioner was not a party in the said writ petition, though in paragraph 11, it was held that appointment of Swarn Kaur was made after 01.07.1995, I find that the said finding is an error of record. As discussed above and from the annexures of this writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner's appointment letter is dated 24.10.1994 and she was appointed with effect from 1.11.1994. Even the letter of approval of the D.S.E. Jamshedpur also suggests that the petitioner's services were approved with effect from 01.11.1994. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the judgment given in the case of Kalpna Lodhiya (supra) that the appointment of the petitioner was made after 1.7.1995 has got no merit and is without support of any documentary evidence. Rather the documentary evidence is in favour of the petitioner that she was appointed on 1.11.1994.Therefore, the respondent cannot deprive the petitioner from any benefit. Thus, from the aforesaid fact it is clear that the petitioner has obtained B.Ed. degree much before coming into force of N.C.T.E. Act and thus the degree cannot be questioned by any authority. Further as there is no upper age limit for appointment of a teacher in the minority aided institution, therefore, there is no necessity to grant any relaxation so far age of the petitioner is concerned. In view of the aforesaid finding, I find merit in this writ application. The impugned order dated 2.4.2008 is, thus, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.4, Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand to pass a necessary order in respect of payment of salary and post retiral benefits of the petitioner (since petitioner has already superannuated now) and all other consequential benefits after duly approving the service of the petitioner. The said process of payment of salary and post retiral benefits including all consequential benefits 2 LPA No. 223 of 2024 should be completed and made within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this observation and direction this application stands allowed.” 3. At the outset, Ms. Amrita Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent takes an objection that about six and a half years after the aforementioned direction was issued by the writ Court, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed and, that too, without an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. As regards the decision of the state authority to deny post-retiral benefits to the writ petitioner, Ms. Amrita Sinha, the learned counsel refers to observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of cases including an observation made in Civil Appeal No. 6118 of 2024 titled “Anand Prakash Mani Tripathi v. State of U.P.” 5. In our opinion, by any stretch of imagination, the State of Jharkhand could not have thought of an order from this Court condoning the delay of six and a half years and filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal seems to be an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. LPA No. 223 of 2024 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Tanuj/ 3 LPA No. 223 of 2024