2026:JHHC:15343 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No.4104 of 2019 -------- Yogendra Prasad Yadav, Aged about 66 years, Son of Jagannath Prasad, Resident of Qtr. No. DT-1117 (Dam Side), Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, At: Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District: Ranchi. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, At: Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District: Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Ρ.Ο.: G.P.O., P.S.: Kotwali, District: Ranchi. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, P.O.: G.P.O., P.S.: Kotwali, District: Ranchi. ……. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III ---------- 10/ 15th April, 2026 The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner prays for following reliefs:- i.) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order(s)/direction(s), commanding upon the respondents to grant B.Sc. Trained Scale to the petitioner, from the date the petitioner passed examination i.e. training in-service 03.05.2002, as the petitioner was appointed as B.Sc. Untrained Teacher and upon completion of training he is entitled to B.Sc. Trained Scale. ii.) Further direction upon the respondents to grant Grade 7, promotion to the post of Headmaster upon completion of the 5 years’ service w.e.f. 03.05.2007, which has to be given to the petitioner, as the petitioner fulfilling all the requisite qualification and in spite of that the petitioner has not been granted the said benefit, due to the latches on the part of the respondents, contrary to the rules, regulations and guidelines applicable in the case of the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:15343 2 iii.) Further, for direction upon the respondents to grant/pay monetary benefits consequential benefits upon granting B.Sc. Trained Scale as well as the scale of the Headmaster from 03.05.2002 and 03.05.2007, respectively. iv.) Further direction upon the respondents to compute the pension upon granting the above promotion and pay the same, for which the petitioner is legally entitled. v.) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) /Rule(s) / order(s) / direction(s), quashing of the Memo No. 3970 dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure 11), whereby & where under the respondent has erroneously rejected the representation filed by the petitioner, which was filed as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court, without application of mind and without considering the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines applicable in the case of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is pressing the instant case for quashing the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 and confines his argument only for grant of B.Sc. trained scale from the date when he passed in-service training and its consequential benefit as the petitioner has already retired. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the Petitioner has been appointed as B.Sc. Untrained Teacher on 10th April, 1982. The other persons, appointed with the petitioner had been sent in-service Training on 10th August, 1982. Those teachers who obtained in-service training are given B.Sc. Trained Scale from the date of publication of result. Again, the other Junior teachers, who have been provided in-service training have also been given Science Graduate scale from the date of their entitlement on 01.04.2011. Despite the fact that the Juniors to the petitioner were sent for training earlier; however, the petitioner has been sent for the Teacher's Training in the year 1998-99 and result has been published in the year 2002; however, Petitioner has not been given B.S.C. trained scale. 4. The petitioner had moved before this Court earlier by filing W.P.(S) No. 5270 of 2015 and the said writ petition was disposed off, by directing the respondents to pass order in this regard within 6 weeks. The respondent passed reasoned order, holding that petitioner's claim for grant of B.Sc. Trained scale is rejected. Hence, this Writ application. 2026:JHHC:15343 3 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the Petitioner has been appointed as B.Sc. Untrained Teacher on 10th April, 1982. Even after several request, the petitioner was not provided In-Service Training and he has been forced to continue as B.Sc. Untrained Teachers till 1998 and ultimately, he has been sent for the Teacher's Training in the year 1998 99 and result has been published in the year 2002. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being Trained Teacher is entitled to get scale of Grade 4 i.e. B.Sc. Trained Scale, from the date of completion of his Teacher's Training but the petitioner has not been allowed and granted the said benefit. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 cannot be made applicable retrospectively in the case of the petitioner as such impugned order may be quashed and consequential benefit may be extended to him. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that as per the rules and circulars prevalent at the relevant time, the grant of B.Sc. trained scale was contingent upon timely completion of the required training. Initially, there was a policy that entitled a teacher to receive the trained scale from the date of completion of training. However, the said position underwent a change pursuant to the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers' Promotion Rules, 1993, whereby the benefit was regulated differently. 9. The petitioner, from 13.12.1984 to 08.02.1990, was suspended on account of his involvement in a criminal case, during which he was also in judicial custody. Owing to his suspension and the ongoing judicial custody, he was unable to undergo the required training during the said period. The petitioner's suspension was revoked by the department in February 1990 and his pay scale was again re-fixed at 1200-30-2040 as a matric trained teacher which is self evident from the contents mentioned in the service book. But he did not complete his training until 2002, by which time Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers' Promotion Rules, 1993 had come in force. Consequently, the earlier rules which allowed the grant of scale from the 2026:JHHC:15343 4 date of training became inapplicable to him in light of Clause (1) of Rule 15 of the 1993 Promotion Rules, which clearly states, "All rules/orders, regarding promotion of teachers, shall be deemed to have been repealed from the date of these rules." Hence no relief should be granted to the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the contention of the respondent regarding 13.12.1984 to 08.02.1990, was suspended on account of his involvement in a criminal case, submits that on account of riot broke out after assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, the petitioner was taken into custody while he was roaming on the road but ultimately he has been released and till date he has not been convicted for any of the act or omission by the competent Court as well as departmentally. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents has no bearing for non-providing in-service training to the petitioner up to 2002. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the petitioner was appointed as a B.Sc. Untrained teacher in the year 1982. As per the conditions of his service he was to undergo training in the subsequent year after being appointed which could have led to have him granted the pay scale of B.Sc. Trained teacher. However, he was not sent to the training till 1984. Meanwhile, due to a criminal case he remained suspended from 13.12.1984 to 08.02.1990, and the suspension was revoked in the year 1990. Despite of this, the petitioner has not been sent for in-service training and only in 1998-99 he was sent for training by the respondent, which was completed by the petitioner in the year 2002. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that since he has completed his training by 2002, he is entitled to the benefits of B.Sc. Trained scale from the date of completion of his training. 13. However, the respondents have contended that the petitioner is not entitled for the pay scale what he is claiming as he had not completed his training after his appointment within the stipulated time period and only 2026:JHHC:15343 5 could complete it by the year 2002, and as such, by virtue of the Promotion Rules, 1993 which came in force and was applicable retrospectively from 01.01.1986; bars the promotion from the date of training and the services of such teachers are regulated differently due to the applicability of Promotion Rules, 1993. 14. 14. Thus, it appears that the petitioner has been denied the benefits on the ground that after revocation of his suspension in 1990, he was already granted the pay scale in equivalence to Matric Trained teachers and Promotional Rules 1993 is applicable retrospectively from 01.01.1986; accordingly, as per the respondents the petitioner’s claim is not sustainable. 15. It transpires from the records that the petitioner joined in 1982 on the post of B.Sc. Untrained Teacher having the legitimate expectation that after training he would be granted the pay scale of the B.Sc. trained teachers; however, due to the peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner was deprived of the benefits in the scenario that he could not be sent for training in the subsequent years due to his suspension; but even after revocation of his suspension in 1990, he was not sent for training and he was only sent for training in the year 1998-99; and for such delay there is no reply of the State. Since, the petitioner has completed his training in the year only in 2002, as such, prima-facie, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should not become the victim of the circumstances. 16. From perusal of the Office Order dated 10.04.1982, it appears that the District Education Committee had issued the conditions of the service wherein it has been stipulated that the B.Sc. Untrained teachers who would undergo in-service training pursuant to that he would be entitled to the trained teachers pay scale after completion of training, which construes that the petitioner is entitled to the trained category pay scale of the B.Sc. teachers after he attains training. 17. Further, this Court is of the considered view that the service conditions of an employee shall not be changed retrospectively which would prejudice him without even giving him due opportunity to present his case. 2026:JHHC:15343 6 18. It is well-established principle of law that there can be no deprivation or curtailment of any existing right, advantage or benefit enjoyed by a government servant without complying with the rules of natural justice by giving the government servant concerned an opportunity of being heard. Any arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power prejudicially affecting the existing conditions of service of a government servant will offend against the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution. 19. Even otherwise, prior to the new Promotion Rules, 1993, as stated hereinabove, even after revocation of suspension of the Petitioner in 1990, he was not sent for training and he was only sent for training in the year 1998-99; and for such delay there is no answer by the Respondent. 20. Accordingly, this Court holds that since, the petitioner has completed his training in the year only in 2002, as such, the petitioner shall be governed by the old Rules which was prevalent at the time of his appointment and also when his suspension was revoked and the petitioner cannot become the victim of the circumstances and also the delay for not sending the petitioner for training from his date of revocation of suspension in 1990 till promulgation of new Promotion Rules, 1993. 21. Having regards to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of B.Sc. Trained Scale from the date of training. 22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.12.2018, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the scale of B.Sc. Trained Scale to the petitioner from the date of completion of his training and per se all other consequential benefits shall also be granted to him within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 23. As a result, the instant writ application stands partly allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 15th April, 2026 Kunal Uploaded on 23.05.2026