Patna High Court
Brajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The petition is disposed of, with the petitioner directed to file a fresh representation and, if his claim is found in his favour, to be granted the regular pay scale and arrears.
Summary
Brajesh Kumar, appointed as a clerk/assistant teacher in Swami Prankushacharya Sanskrit High School, Jehanabad, was approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board but was denied the regular pay scale. He filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and the Board to regularise his position and pay all arrears. The petitioner relied on the Patna High Court’s earlier decision in C.W.J.C. No.985 of 2015, which held that teachers appointed before 31 August 2013 in schools recognised prior to 15 February 2011 could not have their pay scales reduced by later government resolutions. The Court found the present case identical to that precedent and therefore ordered the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the District Education Officer, attaching the Court’s order. The respondent is directed to decide the representation within eight weeks, and if the claim is upheld, the petitioner is to receive the regular salary and arrears. The writ petition is consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the regular pay scale and arrears as per the earlier judgment in C.W.J.C. No.985 of 2015.
- Whether the State Government’s resolutions dated 15 February 2011 and 31 August 2013 can be applied retrospectively to the petitioner’s appointment.
Subjects
- regularisation
- pay scale
- mandamus
- Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board
- teachers
- writ petition
- equality
- retrospective application
- discrimination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2146 of 2026
======================================================
Brajesh Kumar Son of Kapildev Sharma, Resident of Village- Panchmahla,
P.O. and P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary Education,
Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
2. The Special Director, Secondary Education, Department of Education,
Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
3. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bihar, Patna through its Secretary.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Secretary, the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.
6. The District Education Officer, Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad.
7. The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Jehanabad, District-
Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Kumar Ishwar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, AC to GP-22
For the BSSB : Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner was duly appointed as a Clerk in
Swami Prankushacharya Sanskrit High School, Hulasganj
Jehanabad by the Managing Committee vide Memo No.86 dated
24.01.2013 and subsequently his appointment has been duly
approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. However,
notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, he has not been allowed the
regular pay scale; hence, the present writ application seeking
following reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/6
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order,
direction in the nature of Mandamus for
commanding and directing the respondents to
declare the petitioner is regular teachers in the
aforesaid school and further for a direction to the
Respondents to make payment of their salary
allowance and other service benefits to the
petitioner as regular teacher in the aforesaid
school.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order,
direction in the nature of Mandamus for
commanding and directing the respondents to
make payment of all dues salary to the petitioner
as regular Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid school
for which petitioner is entitled under the law.
(iii) For issuance of any other reliefs for which
petitioner may be found in the eyes of law.”
3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner’s school is duly recognized well before the
notification issued by the State Government dated 15.02.2011,
and the posts in question had already been sanctioned prior to
that very notification. It is further submitted that the validity of
the afore-noted resolution of the respondent-State Government
dated 15.02.2011 as well as the subsequent notification dated
31.08.2013, was duly examined by this Court in C.W.J.C.
No.985 of 2015 and the learned Division Bench of this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/6
has clarified the position, in the following words:-
“13. The petitioners are Teachers of such
Madarsas and Schools that stood recognized and
aided prior to 15.02.2011. The impugned
Resolution dated 31.8.2013 quoted hereinabove in
Clause 6 converts the pay-scales of those Teachers
who were appointed in such schools after
15.02.2011 with retrospective effect. This was
therefore impermissible as the matter under
consideration on 15.2.2011 was of giving a fixed
pay-scale to those Madarsas who had not been
recognized up to 15.02.2011, and were found
eligible after inquiry in terms of the said order of
the Government. The 15.02.2011 Resolution
therefore did not contemplate reduction of salary
of those who were getting a regular pay-scale in
recognized and aided Madarsas against posts
sanctioned prior to 15.02.2011 which formed a
different class. The petitioners were deprived of
the regular pay-scale for bringing about an
equality in respect of institutions which were not
subject matter of the Resolution dated 15.02.2011.
The 15.02.2011 resolution does not stipulate any
restriction of regular pay-scales. The State
Government may have been under some
compulsion to reflect equality in its actions as they
agreed to give a fixed pay-scale to the Madarsas
that were recognized after 15.02.2011 as those
Teachers may have demanded a regular pay-scale,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
4/6
but the same could not have Patna High Court
CWJC No.985 of 2015 dt.27-03-2019 9/10 been
made a ground for deprivation of the pay-scale
admissible to sanctioned posts in respect of the
Madarsas and Schools that stood recognized and
aided prior to 15.02.2011. The said benefits could
not have been withdrawn retrospectively as the
petitioners even though appointed after 15.02.2011
but before 31.08.2013 were occupying posts that
were recognized and aided even prior to
15.02.2011 with regular pay-scale. The posts had
not been abolished nor their pay-scales had been
reduced when the petitioners were appointed
which was admittedly prior to 31.08.2013. The
shifting and adjustment of financial burden
adopted by this discriminatory process therefore is
an irrational exercise and is both arbitrary and
discriminatory. If the State Government chose to
give a lesser pay-scale to Madarsas which were
unrecognized and unaided but were recognized
after 15.02.2011, the same formed a separate class
and it cannot be clubbed together for the purpose
of revising the benefits of the petitioners who were
in their own right entitled and were already getting
a regular pay-scale prior to 31.08.2013. The
impugned Resolution dated 31.08.2013, therefore,
cannot apply in the case of those who have been
appointed prior to 31st August, 2013.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned
action and Resolution to the aforesaid effect
Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
5/6
converting the pay-scale of the petitioners cannot
be sustained and is, hereby, quashed insofar as it
relates to the petitioners.
14. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition
and declare that the petitioners will continue to get
the same salary that they were getting prior to the
impugned resolution together with all arrears on
that account that shall be released forthwith within
a period of three months from today.”
4. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that the case of the petitioner is fully covered with the
afore-noted decision passed by the learned Division Bench of
this Court and thus the petitioner is also entitled to get similar
relief(s). It is further added that identically situated persons have
also approached this Court and it is contended at the Bar that
they have been allowed the relief(s) prayed for in the writ
petition.
5. Learned Advocate for the State and the Sanskrit
Shiksha Board seek a short adjournment to file a counter
affidavit.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner
is said to be identical and covered with the decision rendered by
the learned Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.985 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
6/6
2015, instead of keeping the matter pending, this Court deems it
fit and proper to dispose off the present writ petition with a
direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the
respondent no.7 along with the order of this Court and the
decisions over which the reliance has been placed, preferably
within a period of two weeks from the filing of such
representation.
7. In case such a representation is filed before the
concerned respondent, he shall look into the matter and pass a
reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight
weeks.
8. In case the claim of the petitioner finds favour and
covered with the afore-noted decision, similar benefit(s) must be
accorded to the petitioner.
9. The writ petition stands disposed off.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U
Checking your session…