Patna High Court
Kaushal Kishore SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court directed that the petitioner's claim be examined by the Director of Secondary Education within twelve weeks and, if justified, the trained pay scale be extended, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) appointed in 1982, sought direction for the State to grant him differential arrears, revised pay scale, and pension benefits as a trained teacher from 1 January 1989, relying on his Acharya qualification. He argued that earlier policy decisions extended the trained pay scale to teachers appointed in 1981‑82, and that the Supreme Court and earlier High Court judgments required the same treatment for him. The State contended that policy discretion allowed it to limit the extension of the trained pay scale to appointments after 1984‑85 and that the matter had been finally decided by higher courts. The Court noted the finality of the coordinate and division bench judgments and, following the apex court’s parameters, directed the Director of Secondary Education to consider the petitioner’s representation within twelve weeks and to extend the trained pay scale if justified. The writ petition was therefore disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the trained teacher pay scale and related arrears/pension benefits retroactively from 01‑01‑1989 based on his Acharya qualification.
- Whether the State's policy of limiting the trained pay scale to appointments before 1984‑85 can be overridden by judicial direction.
- Whether earlier High Court and Supreme Court decisions bind the present claim and compel the State to grant the benefits.
- Whether the court can direct the administrative authority to adjudicate the claim within a specified time frame.
Subjects
- trained pay scale
- Acharya qualification
- teacher service benefits
- differential arrears
- pension
- state policy discretion
- judicial review
- education department
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1746 of 2026
======================================================
Kaushal Kishore Sharma Son of Late Mundrika Singh, Resident of - At P.O. -
Chesi, P.S.-Nabutpur, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Education Officer, Patna.
6. The District Programme Officer, Patna.
7. The Headmaster, Project Balika Uchcha Vidyalaya, Nabutpur, Nagwa,
District-Patna.
8. The Accountant General (A and E) Bihar, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikramadit, AC to SC-22
Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Vishesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant writ application has been filed seeking a
direction to the respondents to make payment of the differential
arrear salary with effect from 01.01.1989, granting approval of
the petitioner’s service as a trained teacher up to the date of
retirement, i.e., 30.04.2019, along with the revised pay scale
with due interest, and to make payment of the revised pension
Patna High Court CWJC No.1746 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/7
and other differential pensionary benefits forthwith, in terms of
the resolution contained in Memo No.39P dated 05.03.2018,
issued by the Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
and in compliance with the notification contained in Memo
No.92P dated 31.05.2018, issued by the Department of
Education (Bihar Secondary Education Office), Government of
Bihar. The petitioner seeks approval of service similar to that
granted to certain teachers, with effect from 01.01.1989 instead
of 25.01.2000, wherein the petitioner’s name stands at Sl.
No.13, by virtue of the Acharya Degree being treated as
equivalent to a trained teacher, which gets substantiated by
Memo No.6066 dated 24.11.1986 issued by the then Director-
cum-Joint Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna, and upheld in various orders passed by this Court
and the Hon’ble Apex Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) in
Project Balika Uchcha Vidyalaya, Nabutpur, Nagwa, District
Patna, which was established well before the year 1984 by the
Managing Committee. The petitioner was appointed after due
assessment of his qualifications and eligibility for the said post,
and accordingly, he was appointed on 28.04.1982. It is further
Patna High Court CWJC No.1746 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/7
submitted that the petitioner has an unblemished career and has
never been subjected to any departmental enquiry or any
proceeding of a kind, which could hinder grant of such
promotion.
4. It is next submitted that the petitioner’s services
were recommended with effect from 01.01.1989, and the
monetary benefits have been extended to him from the date of
such recommendation. However, the scale of pay applicable to a
trained teacher, based on his qualification of Acharya, has not
been granted. It is submitted that the State Government had
taken a policy decision, under which, in the first phase, the
trained pay scale was extended to persons appointed in the year
1981-82. In the second phase, however, the benefits under the
same policy have not been extended to persons appointed after
1984-85, including the petitioner.
5. It is further submitted that similar issues were
brought to the notice of the coordinate Bench in CWJC No.
20719 of 2014, and the Hon’ble Bench disposed of the writ
petition with a direction to the Director of Secondary Education
to scrutinize the grant of trained pay scale on the basis of the
Acharya qualification, which has already been approved by the
authorities. The issue has thus been settled insofar as Sanskrit
Patna High Court CWJC No.1746 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
4/7
teachers are concerned, the reference of which can be read from
the direction issued vide order dated 01.10.2018 passed in
CWJC No. 20719 of 2014, holding that the trained pay scale be
granted after examining the bona fides of teachers claiming such
pay scale on the basis of qualifications obtained, specifically the
degree of Acharya or Fazil, prior to the commencement of the
NCTE Act, 1993. The State Government had challenged the
order passed by the coordinate Bench in CWJC No. 20719 of
2014 vide LPA No. 538 of 2019, in which, after due
deliberation, the following order was passed:
“….3. Perusal of the aforementioned
information, one cannot draw inference as to whether
respondent Arun Kumar Rai service particulars have been
taken into consideration for the purpose of
implementation of the orders of this Court in the case of
State of Bihar vs Project Uchcha Vidya Sikshak Sangh
And Others reported in 2006 (1) PLJR (SC) 483.
4. Further, it is necessary to take note of para 16
of the Committee Report which is enclosed alongwith the
first supplementary and it is reads as under:-
“16. Among the teachers
appointed in Sanskrit subject, those who
have acquired the qualification of Acharya
have been considered as trained teachers in
the light of the prevailing rules of the
government. But keeping in mind the
essentiality of training, this committee
recommends that teachers having the
qualification of Acharya in Sanskrit subject
and working as teachers in the same subject
should obtain the degree of B.Ed. At one’s
own expense within three years, otherwise
promotion and other benefits (including
Patna High Court CWJC No.1746 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
5/7
salary increment) will not be payable to
them and the government will be able to
terminate their service.”
5. Reading of the aforementioned paragraph,
committee has exceeded its jurisdiction insofar as
prescription of certain qualifications to such of those have
qualifications of Acharaya. It is the domain of the State
Government to prescribe qualification. In the light of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of P.U. Joshi
Vs. Accountant General reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632,
Para 10 which reads as under:-
10. We have carefully considered the
submissions made on behalf of both parties.
Questions relating to the constitution, pattern,
nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their
creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications
and other conditions of service including avenues
of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such
promotions pertain to the field of policy is within
the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the
State, subject, of course, to the limitations or
restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India
and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate,
to direct the Government to have a particular
method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or
avenues of promotion or impose itself by
substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly,
it is well open and within the competency of the
State to change the rules relating to a service and
alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction
the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other
conditions of service including avenues of
promotion, from time to time, as the administrative
exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the
State by appropriate rules is entitled to
amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments
into more and constitute different categories of
posts or cadres by undertaking further
classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well
as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and
cadres/categories of service, as may be required
from time to time by abolishing the existing
cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There
Patna High Court CWJC No.1746 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
6/7
is no right in any employee of the State to claim
that rules governing conditions of his service
should be forever the same as the one when he
entered service for all purposes and except for
ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already
earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point
of time, a government servant has no right to
challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter
and bring into force new rules relating to even an
existing service.
6. Be that as it may, reading of the full Bench
decision of this Court in particularly para 35 in the case of
Project Uchchavidyalaya Sikshak Sangh and Others Vs.
State of Bihar (FB) reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 287 read
with Hon’ble Supreme Court decision cited (supra)
namely para 83, there is no judicial direction for the
committee to prescribe qualification. Therefore, para 16
of the report is not in the light of the observation made by
this Court and the Hon’ble SupremeCourt. Hence, any
reliance on Para 16 to interfere with the Single Judge
order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 20719 of 2014 has not been
made out in the present L.P.A. No. 538 of 2019 (The State
of Bihar and others Vs Arun Kumar Rai).
7. Accordingly, the present L.P.A. No. 538 of
2019 stands dismissed.”
6. It is next submitted that after the disposal of LPA
No. 538 of 2019 by the Division Bench, the said judgment was
challenged by filing SLP (C) Diary No. 4431/2025, which was
also dismissed on 03.03.2025. In the said order, it was observed
that the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
does not dispute the factual position on record, as the issues
Patna High Court CWJC No.1746 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
7/7
have been laid to rest and the judgments passed by the Hon’ble
Coordinate Bench, as well as the Hon’ble Division Bench, have
attained finality at the level of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Appropriate directions can, therefore, be issued to the Director
of Secondary Education to take a final decision regarding the
petitioner’s claim.
8. Considering the submissions of the parties, this
Court is of the view that an appropriate representation, along
with all supporting documents and a copy of this order, shall be
placed before Respondent No. 4 for consideration. Upon filing
such representation, the same shall be adjudicated within twelve
weeks, strictly in accordance with the parameters laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment. If the
petitioner’s claim is found to be justified, the trained pay scale
shall be extended in his favour within the same period.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
the instant writ application is disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U
Checking your session…