IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.169 of 2021 ====================================================== 1. Alok Ranjan, S/o Nagendra Kumar Mishra, Resident of Village - Bahera Jahidpur, P.O. Bahera Zahid B. Jahidpur, P.S. Nanpur, Dist. - Sitamarhi. 2. Surendra Kumar, S/o Jagdish Rai, Resident of Village - Naya Tola Mehsoul Ward no. 25, P.S. Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi. 3. Atul Kumar, S/o Vikram Prasad Sharma, Resident of Village - Azad Colony Maripur, P.S. - Muzaffarpur (T), Dist. - Muzaffarpur. 4. Amresh Kumar, S/o Kedar Prasad Bhagat, Resident of Village - Harauli, Harauli Fatehpur, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, Dist. - Vaishali. 5. Sarfraz Ali Ahmad, S/o Md. Zafrul Hasan, Resident of Village - Ward No. 4, Belahiya, Belahia, P.S. Bajpatti, Dist.- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 1, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhukar Mishra, AC to SC-16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-08-2025 Heard Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Madhukar Mishra, learned AC to SC-16 for the respondent/s. 2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition have sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter: "1. That this application is being filed for Patna High Court CWJC No.169 of 2021 dt.05-08-2025 2/8 issuance of writ especially in nature of certiorari for quashing of Provision as contained in Para- 2.3 & 2.4 of the Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.08.2015 so far calculation of three years of previous service as one year for payment of annual increment of the qualified teachers as well as petitioners, which is contrary to the then Rule, 2012. For further issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondents concern to make payment of increment of Previous years i.e. prior to 2015 after calculation as per Rule 2012 which provides annual increment of each years, as well as resolution No.- 610 dated 05-06-2014. For further issuance of writ in nature of Mandamus directing to the Respondents that after payment of arrear and accordingly fix the pay grade and maintained seniority and after Rule 2020, make payment of increment as per Rule 2020, which says that annual increment shall be paid as previous Rule and the previous Rule is Rule 2012. For further issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/Directions, command/commands to the Respondents for which the petitioners and like candidates are legally entitled." 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are Secondary and Senior Secondary Teachers, who are governed by the service conditions rules namely, Bihar Secondary and Senior Secondary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2006'), which has been repealed by Bihar Municipal Corporation Secondary and Senior Secondary School Service (Appointment, Promotion, Transfer, Disciplinary Proceeding and Service Condition) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2020'). The concern of the petitioner is in respect of applicability of Clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.08.2015, which relates to give benefit of one increment Patna High Court CWJC No.169 of 2021 dt.05-08-2025 3/8 after completion of every three years from the date of appointment, to be against the provision of amendment made in Rule 8 of Rules, 2006 in the year 2012. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Clause 7 of the said amendment contained in Memo No. 1325 dated 03.07.2012 having clarified vide Memo No. 1649 dated 18.12.2014 to provide one increment after every one year 'Kalavadhi'. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioners claim is misconceived. Petitioners have totally misinterpreted the Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.08.2015, which is beneficial in nature having provided the pay-scale to the 'Niyojit Teachers' of Elementary School, Secondary School and Senior Secondary School. Learned counsel submitted that only rectification, which is required in the said resolution is to incorporate the 'Untrained' and 'Trained' teachers of Classes VI to VIII. The rectification as required has been admitted by the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, in case of Sudha Trivedy vs. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 8407 of 2021). The petitioners are Secondary and Senior Secondary Teachers and the contention as has been made by the petitioners taking into aid of the Rule 8 as amended in the year 2012 will not be applicable to the cases of Patna High Court CWJC No.169 of 2021 dt.05-08-2025 4/8 the Secondary and Senior Secondary Teachers considering that the pay-scale as has been notified and the 'kalavadhi', which has been prescribed by the State Government for providing increment, is the policy decision taken by the Sate Government. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association reported in (2023) 19 SCC 482. 5. Heard the parties. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and having considered the case of the respective parties, I have given thoughtful consideration to the Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.08.2015. In my judgment delivered on 22.07.2025 in the case of Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 17709 of 2021) in paragraphs no. 78 to 82 of the said judgment, I have arrived at the following conclusion which inter alia are as under: "78. An attention of this Court has been drawn that the State Government vide Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.08.2015, which is beneficial in nature and on plain reading of the resolution, it appears that it prescribe pay scale for only Primary Teachers (Prathmik Shikshak) and trained and untrained Primary, Secondary, Higher Secondary teachers and Librarians. It has completely left out the Middle (Prarambhik) School Teachers (Class VI- VIII) in respect of prescribing pay scale to grant the similar benefit as prescribed to the Primary (Prathmik) Teachers, Secondary Teachers and Higher Secondary Teachers. The relevant part of the said resolution reproduced hereinafter: Patna High Court CWJC No.169 of 2021 dt.05-08-2025 5/8 “2- orZeku esa fu;ksftr f”k{kd ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{k fu;r osru ij dk;Zjr gSA iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa ds ek/;e ls lHkh fu;ksftr izf”kf{kr] vizf”kf{kr izkFkfed] ek/;fed] mPp ek/;fed f”k{kd ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{kksa dks fu;r osru ds LFkku ij fuEuor~ vuq”kaflr osrueku nsus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%& 2-1 izkFkfed f k{kd ” dz0 la0 inuke la[;k osrueku~ xzsM osru 1 2 3 4 5 1 izkFkfed (Primary) f”k{kd ¼vizf”kf{kr½ 62031 5200&20200 0 2 izkFkfed (Primary) f”k{kd ¼izf”kf{kr½ 245344 5200&20200 2000 3 izkFkfed (Primary) f”k{kd ¼Lukrd xzsM vizf”kf{kr½ 14000 5200&20200 0 4 izkFkfed (Primary) f”k{kd ¼Lukrd xzsM izf”kf{kr½ 22739 5200&20200 2400 dqy f”k{kd ¼izdkf”kr foKfIr ds fo:) Hkfo’; esa gksusokyh fu;qfDr lfgr½ 344114 2-2 ek/;fed f k{kd@iqLrdky;k/;{k ” dz0 la0 inuke la[;k osrueku~ xzsM osru 1 2 3 4 5 1 Ekk/;fed f”k{kd ¼vizf”kf{kr½ 4463 5200&20200 0 2 Ekk/;fed f”k{kd ¼izf”kf{kr½ 25038 5200&20200 2400 3 iqLrdky;k/;{k 1900 5200&20200 2400 4 mPp Ekk/;fed f”k{kd (10+2) ¼vizf”kf{kr½ 3058 5200&20200 0 5 mPp Ekk/;fed f”k{kd (10+2) ¼izf”kf{kr½ 26774 5200&20200 2800 dqy f”k{kd ¼izdkf”kr foKfIr ds fo:) Hkfo’; esa gksusokyh fu;qfDr lfgr½ 61233 2-3 izf”kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed] mPp ek/;fed f”k{kdksa ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{k dks 01 tqykbZ] 2015 ls 5200&20200 ds osrueku esa 5200 dk csfld osru ns; gksxk] ftl ij izkFkfed f”k{kd ¼izf”kf{kr½ dks 2000 :i;s] izkFkfed f”k{kd¼Lukrd xzsM izf”kf{kr½] ek/;fed f”k{kd ¼izf”kf{kr½ ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{k dks 2400 :i;s rFkk mPp ek/;fed ¼izf”kf{kr½ f”k{kd dks 2800 :i;s dks xzsM is ns; gksxkA iwoZ dh x;h lsok ds fy, izR;sd rhu o’kZ dh lsok ds fy, ,d okf’kZd Patna High Court CWJC No.169 of 2021 dt.05-08-2025 6/8 osru o`f) rhu izfr”kr dh nj ls ns; gksxhA 2-4 vizf”kf{kr izkjafHkd] vizf”kf{kr ek/;fed ,oa vizf”kf{kr mPp ek/;fed f”k{kdksa dks 5200&20200 osrueku esa 01 tqykbZ] 2015 ls 5200 dk csfld osru ns; gksxk] ijarq xzsM is ns; ugha gksxkA vizf”kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed] mPp ek/;fed f”k{kdksa dks izf”kf{kr gksus ds mijkar vuq”kaflr osrueku dk xszM is ns; gksxkA iwoZ esa dh x;h lsok ds fy, izR;sd rhu o’kZ dh lsok ds fy, ,d okf’kZd osru o`f) rhu izfr”kr dh nj ls ns; gksxhA 2-5 izf”kf{kr ,oa vizf”kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed] mPp ek/;fed f”k{kdksa ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{kksa dks le;≤ ij jkT; ljdkj ds dfeZ;ksa ds vuq:i ?kksf’kr egaxkbZ HkRrk] fpfdRlk HkRrk] edku fdjk;k HkRrk ,oa ns; okf’kZd osru o`f) ns; gksxhA 2-6 vizf”kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed ,oa mPp ek/;fed] f”k{kdksa dks 01 tqykbZ 2015 dks ns; osru esa de ls de U;wure 20 izfr”kr dh o`f) dh tk;sxhA ftu ekeyksa esa 20 izfr”kr ls de o`f) fu/kkZfjr gksxh] oSls ekeyksa esa 20 izfr”kr rd o`f) djus ds fy, 100 ds xq.kd esa jkf”k tksM+h tk;sxh] ftls oS;fDrd osru ekuk tk;sxkA oS;fDrd osru ij egaxkbZ HkRrk ns; ugha gksxkA 2-7 vizf”kf{kr izkjafHkd f”k{kd ¼Lukrd xzsM½ ,oa vizf”kf{kr ek/;fed f”k{kdksa dks fo”ks’k HkRrk ds :i esa 1500 :i;s dh jkf”k izfrekg nh tk;sxh] ftlij egaxkbZ HkRrk ns; ugha gksxkA ;g jkf”k bl mn~ns”; ls nh tk jgh gS fd izkFkfed] iz[kaM f”k{kd] ek/;fed ,oa mPp ek/;fed f”k{kd ds osru esa iwoZ dh Hkkafr vUrj jgsA 2-8 fu;ksftr ,oa Hkfo’; esa fu;ksftr izf kf{kr izkjafHkd] ” ek/;fed] mPp ek/;fed f k{kdksa ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{kksa dks ” osrueku ds lkFk xszM is dh ns;rk mudh lsok ds nks o’kZ iwjk gksus ds mijkar ns; gksxhA nks o’kZ dh dkykfo/k esa bUgsa vizf kf{kr izkjafHkd] vizf kf{kr ek/;fed] vizf kf{kr mPp ” ” ” ek/;fed f k{kdksa ds vuq:i osrueku ns; gksxkA ” 79. The pay scale sanctioned under this Resolution dated 11.08.2015 to all the said teachers both Trained and Untrained was Rs. 5200-20,200/- and the only difference was with respect to grade pay. For Prathmik Shikshak (Primary) (Trained), grade pay was Rs. 2000/- and for Prathmik (Primary) Shikshak (Graduate Grade Trained), it was fixed at Rs. 2400/- and for Madhyamik Shikshak (Trained), the grade pay was fixed at Rs. 2400/- vide para 2.1 and 2.2 of the resolution. Further Para 2.3 of this Resolution clearly provided that for Prashikshit Prarambhik and Madhyamik teachers the basic pay in the pay scale of Rs. 5200 20200 would be Rs. 5200 w.e.f. 1.7.2015 on which the Grade Pay admissible for Prathmik Shikshak (Prashikshit) would be Rs. 2000, for Prathmik Shikshak (Snatak Grade Prashikshit) it would be Rs. 2400 and for Madhyamik Shikshak (Prashikshit) it would be Rs. 2400. From the above Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.8.2015 it would be evident that in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 (a) Grade Pay of Rs. 2000 is admissible to only one category of teachers being Prathmik Shikshak (Prashikshit) Patna High Court CWJC No.169 of 2021 dt.05-08-2025 7/8 i.e. a trained teacher in basic grade teaching in Prathamik Vidyalaya and (b) Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 is admissible to two categories of teachers being (i) Prathmik Shikshak (Snatak Grade Prashikshit) and (ii) Madyamik Shikshak (Prashikshit) i.e. trained teachers who are in graduate grade and teaching either in Prathmik Vidyalaya (i.e. for schools upto Standard V) or in Madyamik Vidyalaya (i.e. for schools upto Standard VI or VIII) are both entitled for Grade Pay of Rs. 2400. Thus irrespective of the category of school in which a teacher is teaching i.e. either in Prathamik or Madyamik Vidyalaya, if such teacher has an educational qualification of graduate and technical qualification of teachers training then such trained graduate teachers are entitled for Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 and not of Rs. 2000 which is admissible to a teacher teaching only in Prathmik Vidyalaya (not Madyamik Vidyalaya) and having educational qualification of Intermediate only with technical qualification of teachers training and thus falling in basic grade as per Rule 4(i), 11 (kha) and 15(i) of the 2012 Niyamawali. 80. Learned Advocate General, in this regard, in CWJC No. 8407 of 2021 (Sudha Trivedy vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) in the presence of the Additional Chief Secretary informed that necessary steps shall be taken to rectify the Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.08.2015, by inserting the teachers of Class VI to VIII in Middle School or Elementary School, who are also entitled for Graduate pay-scale of 'Trained' and 'Untrained', and are equally entitled for the benefit of the Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.08.2015. The discrimination so pointed out will be meted out soon. 81. It is well settled that once right is given to a candidate, obviously the benefit arising out of the same cannot be refused by the State Government, while saying that the appointment of teacher in graduate grade had begun after the enactment of Rules, 2012. The petitioner and like ‘Niyojit Teachers’ appointed and working in the Middle School having requisite qualifications of ‘Graduate Trained’ or its equivalent qualification would be entitled to the pay attached to the said post. It is expected from the welfare State that the liberty which has been left open to them by virtue of Sub-Section 3 of Section 23, should not be denied to the petitioner and like other ‘Niyojit Teachers’. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for grade pay of Rs. 2400 in pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20,200/- with effect from 01.07.2015 and also give the benefit granted under Resolution No. 1632 dated 21.06.2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2016 (on notional benefit) and 01.04.2017 (with financial benefit) and is also entitled for fixation of pay as per the pay matrix mentioned therein w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in the same pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20,200/-. 82. At the same time, it has been informed Patna High Court CWJC No.169 of 2021 dt.05-08-2025 8/8 that the State has enacted new Rules, 2020 for Panchayat Raj Institution Teachers. As per the provision of these rules, the benefit of E.P.F. Scheme has been extended to the teachers w.e.f. 01.09.2010. Further the pay structure of these teachers has been revised w.e.f. 01.04.2021." 7. In view of the discussions made in the above paragraphs in the case of Rajesh Kumar Pandey (Supra), I restrain from interfering with the policy decision taken by the State Government granting one increment at the rate of 3 percent after completing 'Kalavadhi' of three years. 8. With aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present writ petition stands disposed of. 9. There shall be no order as to cost. Niraj/- (Purnendu Singh, J) AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 06.08.2025 Transmission Date N/A