Pushplata Kumari, vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13992 of 2025
CNR No. BRHC010823982025
======================================================
Pushplata Kumari, Wife of Manjit Singh, Resident of Village Shakuana,
Police Station Chauri, District Bhojpur at Ara, at present Resident of Yadopur,
Police Station - Tiyar, District -Bhojpur at Ara.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara.
3. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur at Ara.
4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Bhojpur at Ara.
5. The Block Development Officer, Block Sahar, District Bhojpur at Ara.
6. The Block Education Offier, Block - Sahar, District Bhojpur at Ara.
7. The Headmaster, Upgraded Middle School, Inrukhi, Block Sahar, District
Bhojpur at Ara.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, AAG-18
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, AC to AAG-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-10-2026
Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, along with Mr. Ranjan
Kumar Singh, learned Advocate(s) for the petitioner, and Mr
Kumar Gaurav, learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
2/17
09.06.2025/28.05.2025 passed in Case No. Appeal T-11/2024 by
the Chairperson (A) of the State Appellate Authority, by which
the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been disallowed,
affirming the order of the District Appellate Authority, Bhojpur,
in Appeal No. 13 of 2018. The order of the District Appellate
Authority dated 02.09.2023 passed in Appeal Case No. 13/2018
by the Presiding Officer of the District Appellate Authority,
Bhojpur, has also been questioned before this Court.
3. The facts, as narrated in the writ petition and culled
out from the materials on record, demonstrate that the petitioner
along with others were duly appointed as a Block Teacher in the
second phase of selection in the year 2008, after counselling and
preparation of the merit list, vide letter dated 28.12.2010 under
Memo No. 774, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure P/3 to
the writ application. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner
submitted her joining in Upgraded Middle School, Inrukhi,
Block Sahar, District- Bhojpur at Ara, which was duly accepted
by the then Headmaster of the school on 03.01.2011.
4. Despite her appointment and joining, as recorded
hereinabove, the petitioner and other identically situated persons
were not paid their salaries, which compelled them to approach
the authorities concerned, including the District Magistrate. In
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
3/17
the meanwhile, a complaint was filed by one Shyam Bihari Rai,
claiming to be the Secretary of an NGO, before the
Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Unit, Bihar,
Patna, with regard to irregularities in the appointment of second-
phase teachers in Block Sahar, concerning Block Teachers, 72 in
number. Based on the said allegation, an FIR came to be
instituted being Sahar P.S. Case No. 123 of 2012 by the Special
Economic Unit wing of the State Police. The Special Economic
Unit enquired into the matter and found the appointments of 14
teachers to be irregular, whereas no illegality was found in the
appointments of the remaining 58 Block Teachers.
5. The petitioner falls in the category of 58 teachers
whose appointments have been opined by the police not to be
tainted with any illegality. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact,
when the petitioner, along with others, was not paid her salary,
some identically situated teachers approached the District
Teachers Appellate Authority, Bhojpur, at Ara, in Appeal Case
No. 18/2015 and other analogous appeals, which came to be
allowed vide order dated 24.02.2016, holding that the appellants
were entitled to payment of their salary from the date of their
joining. The aforesaid order of the District Appellate Authority
has been placed on record as Annexure P/7 to the writ petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
4/17
6. The State, being aggrieved by the order passed by
the District Appellate Authority, preferred an appeal before the
State Appellate Authority in Case No. Appeal 109/2017, which
finally came to be disallowed vide order dated 18.01.2018,
affirming the order of the District Appellate Authority. However,
liberty was granted to the Block Teachers Employment Unit to
take appropriate action under Rule 15(chha) of the Bihar
Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service
Conditions) Rules, 2012, and a further direction was issued for
payment of salary to the respondents.
7. Against the order passed by the State Appellate
Authority affirming the order of the District Appellate Authority,
the respondent State authorities preferred CWJC No. 16153 of
2022 , which also stood dismissed vide order/judgment dated
01.12.2022, holding that no interference is warranted, besides
declaring the challenge to be misconceived.
8. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, having learnt that
identical issues had been considered favourably by the District
Teachers Appellate Authority, as recorded hereinabove,
approached the District Appellate Authority, Bhojpur at Ara, by
filing an appeal bearing No. 13/2018, referring to the order
passed in Appeal Case No. 18/2015 and other analogous cases,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
5/17
and sought similar relief for payment of salary. However, the
same was rejected by treating the appointment of the petitioner
as illegal, besides being against the vacancy roster.
9. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal
bearing Case No. Appeal T-11/2024, which was also rejected
vide order dated 09.06.2025/28.05.2025 by treating the
petitioner as a fence-sitter and holding the petitioner not entitled
to any benefit at par with those in whose favour the District
Appellate Authority had passed the order extending the benefit
of salary, as the appeal preferred by the petitioner was time-
barred. Both these orders passed by the District Appellate
Authority as well as the State Appellate Authority rejecting the
claim of the petitioner, are under challenge before this Court.
10. Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned Advocate for the
petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, has submitted
that, admittedly, the Employment Unit, vide its letter No. 774
dated 28.12.2010, had appointed 72 Block Teachers, and upon
complaints having been made, an FIR came to be instituted,
bearing Sahar P.S. Case No. 123 of 2012. However, the
appointment of the petitioner was not found under the category
of illegal/irregular appointments; rather, the petitioner falls
under the category of 58 teachers, whose appointments were not
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
6/17
found to be tainted, and subsequently, the District Appellate
Authority, after proper examination of the records, had directed
payment of salary to them, and in pursuance thereof, they were
paid their due salaries, upon affirmance of the order by the State
Appellate Authority and the High Court.
11. The Block Employment Unit, on being informed
of the report of the Economic Offences Unit, had unanimously
taken a decision in its meeting dated 22.08.2014 to continue the
employment of these 58 teachers. Moreover, in the course of
inspection, it was found that the petitioner was present in the
school and her name was recorded in the attendance register.
The certificate given by the concerned Headmaster categorically
demonstrates and acknowledges that the petitioner had joined
the school, in question, on 03.01.2011 in view of her
appointment letter under Memo No. 774 dated 28.12.2010. It is
further contended that subsequent to this dispute on account of
lack of eligibility in relation to teacher’s training in Diploma in
Elementary Examination, a further claim has been raised before
this Court in CWJC No. 11665 of 2017 , and during the
pendency of the writ petition, all the 48 trained/untrained Block
Teachers were paid their salaries, but ignoring the bona fide
entitlement of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
7/17
12. An identical issue has also come up for
consideration in CWJC No. 17538 of 2018 in the case of Md.
Nasir Hussain and Ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors. , who
were amongst those 14 teachers against whom the Economic
Offences Unit had reported that their appointments were
irregular. A Bench of this Court, after taking note of the fact that
the FIR bearing Sahar P.S. Case No. 123 of 2012 was instituted
against 14 named accused persons, including the petitioners in
CWJC No. 17538 of 2018, noted that, till date, the State had not
taken any decision with respect to their removal; rather, they
were being allowed to continue in their service. The rest of the
Block Teachers, who were appointed like the petitioners in
CWJC No. 17538 of 2018, when approached the District
Appellate Authority, they were paid their salaries. The appeal
preferred by the State authorities against such order also failed
before the State Appellate Authority as well as this Court. The
learned Coordinate Bench, noticing the afore-said facts set aside
the impugned order of the District Appellate Authority dated
25.06.2018, as affirmed by the State Appellate Authority in
Appeal Nos. 192 of 2017 and 243 of 2017, whereby the claim of
the petitioners for salary had been denied.
13. Referring to the aforesaid decisions, it is further
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
8/17
submitted that it is very much surprising that all the 71 persons
have been paid salaries for the period during which they
discharged their duties, but only the petitioner has been deprived
of her salary w.e.f. the date of her joining. The orders of the
District/State Appellate Authority, denying the rightful claim of
the petitioner, are said to be wholly illegal, bad in law, and
contrary to the orders passed by this Court in identical matters.
14. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to
the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Abdul Baqui Ansari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors arising
out of SLP (C) No(s). 25298 of 2023 and other analogous
cases, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that those,
who were appointed prior to 31.03.2015 shall be allowed to
continue so that they are given time to acquire the qualification
of Diploma in Elementary Education or TET on or before
31.08.2028.
15. Despite the fact that other identically situated
untrained teachers were protected under the orders of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to acquire the requisite qualification
within the extended timeline, the petitioner was restrained from
discharging her duties and from putting her signature in the
attendance register, whereas other identically situated persons
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
9/17
have been reinstated and their salaries are also paid.
16. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State,
refuting the contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner,
submitted that, from the record, it appears that the petitioner was
appointed in the year 2010, but her appointment was apparently
against the roster point. Moreover, the entire selection process in
connection with the appointment of the petitioner and other
identically situated persons was tainted with several
disputes/irregularities.
17. Learned Advocate for the State further submitted
that the Appellate Authority had categorically observed that,
once the petitioner was not paid her salary since 2011, she
should have approached the District Appellate Authority
immediately or, at most, within three to four months. However,
she approached the District Appellate Authority in the year
2018, after a lapse of more than seven years, and hence, she was
declared to be a fence-sitter. So far as the others are concerned,
they had approached the District Appellate Authority in the year
2015.
18. Referring to a decision rendered in the State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors.
(2015) 1 SCC 347. , it is submitted that the Hon’ble Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
10/17
clearly spelt out those persons, who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases, and approached the Court after a
long delay only because their counterparts, who had approached
the Court earlier, succeeded in their efforts, cannot claim that
the benefit of the judgment rendered in the cases of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as
fence-sitters, and delay, laches and acquiescence would be valid
grounds for dismissing their claims.
19. So far the persons with whom the petitioner is
seeking parity are concerned, it is submitted that, since they had
approached the District Appellate Authority in time, they were
extended the benefit of salary. So far as the petitioner is
concerned, the District Appellate Authority opined that her
appointment was tainted with illegality and, thus, her case was
different from those in whose favour the order for payment of
salary had been passed. The order of the District Appellate
Authority holding her appointment to be bad also stood affirmed
by the State Appellate Authority in Case No. Appeal T-11/2024.
20. This Court has extensively heard learned
Advocates for the respective parties and also perused the
materials available on record.
21. On a careful consideration of the record, it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
11/17
evident that, in the year 2010, 72 Block Teachers were
appointed by the Employment Unit and, upon a complaint, an
FIR came to be instituted by the Special Economic Unit wing of
the State Police. Upon inquiry into the matter, no illegality was
found in the appointments of 58 Block Teachers, including the
petitioner, whereas, with respect to 14 Block Teachers, it was
opined that their appointments were irregular.
22. At no point of time was any proceeding
whatsoever, much less any show-cause notice, issued with
respect to the initial appointments of the 58 persons, including
the petitioner. Since they were not paid their respective salaries,
some of the teachers approached the District Appellate
Authority in the year 2015. Admittedly, the petitioner was not
one of them and was awaiting the outcome. Subsequently, the
District Appellate Authority, with regard to other identically
situated persons, directed payment of salary upon finding their
appointments to be valid.
23. The petitioner, after having come to know that
others had been granted favourable orders and extended the
benefit of salary, also approached the District Appellate
Authority by filing Appeal Case No. 13 of 2018.
24. Non-payment of salary despite the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
12/17
having continuously rendered services would, in the considered
opinion of this Court, constitute a continuing cause of action
and, as such, the claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay
and laches.
25. Normally, claims in service matters are rejected
either on the ground of limitation, where a limitation period is
prescribed, or on the ground of delay and laches, where no
limitation is prescribed, if the claim is hopelessly barred by
delay and laches. However, an exception to this principle
applies in cases of continuing wrong, which can be entertained
despite delay. There is a further exception to this rule where the
interests of third parties, as in cases of seniority or promotion,
are affected. Since none of these grounds was available to the
District Appellate Authority or the State Appellate Authority, the
claim of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected, nor
should the petitioner have been termed a fence-sitter.
26. This Court also finds that, once the petitioner had
approached the District Appellate Authority for payment of
salary for the period during which she had discharged her duties,
the finding of the District Appellate Authority holding her
appointment to be illegal or tainted with various irregularities
was unwarranted, particularly when the authority had noticed
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
13/17
that the predecessor authority had directed the State authorities
to ensure payment to identically situated persons and that the
said order had been duly affirmed by the State Appellate
Authority as well as by this Court. Any contrary view by
travelling beyond the issue raised before such authority would
also tantamount to overreaching the orders which stood affirmed
by this Court in identical matters, besides beyond its
jurisdiction.
27. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the
petitioner had approached the District Appellate Authority by
filing Appeal No. 13 of 2018, which came to be disposed off on
02.09.2023, almost five years later. Uniformity is the hallmark
of justice, and the same must be uniformly adopted by the
authority/tribunal that has been statutorily assigned the duty of
adjudication, falling within its jurisdiction.
28. This Court also finds substance in the writ petition
in view of the stand taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in CWJC No. 17538 of 2018 , wherein the Coordinate Bench
dealt with the teachers, whose cases fell within the irregular
category in view of the inquiry conducted by the Economic
Offences Unit. However, upon finding that no action had been
taken for more than a decade despite the FIR having been
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
14/17
lodged against them and that, on the contrary, they were being
allowed to discharge their duties, the Court rightly set aside the
orders of the District Appellate Authority as well as the State
Appellate Authority, whereby they had been denied salary for
the period during which they had rendered their duties and
directed payment of salary to them.
29. This Court also finds that the petitioner is the only
unfortunate one whose case has been discriminated against all
the other 71 teachers, notwithstanding the fact that they were
appointed under one and the same memo, being Letter No. 774
dated 28.12.2010.
30. Materials have also been placed before this Court
to show that the petitioner has not been allowed to sign the
attendance register; besides her salary for the working period
having been withheld, contrary to the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 25298 of 2023. In
pursuance thereof, out of 30 untrained teachers, 29 were
allowed to sign the attendance register, except the petitioner.
31. Such action of the concerned respodent(s) is, in
the opinion of this Court, contrary to the clear mandate of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, which reads as follows:-
“15. There is no dispute that
D.El.Ed is an essential qualification
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
15/17
and thus, once the appellants were
lacking in that qualification but, were
in service on 31.03.20215, the time
extended in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem
Trust squarely applies for them also
and thus, we dispose of all such
appeals in which the appellants were
in service on 31.03.2015, allowing
them time to acquire the D.El.ED
qualification on or before 31.08.2028.
Those candidates, who were appointed
prior to 31.03.2015 but, have been
terminated in terms of the High Court
order, shall be allowed to continue so
that they are given time to acquire the
qualification on or before 31.08.2028.
The result of D.El.Ed examination held
already shall be declared at the
earliest.”
32. The photocopy of the certificate issued by the
Headmaster of the school, a copy of which is marked as
Annexure P/11 series, also strengthens the case of the petitioner
that she has been continuously discharging her duties in the
school in question. Several untrained Block Teachers, including
the petitioner, were restrained from signing the attendance
register vide Letter No. 651 dated 10.07.2024, but subsequently,
all the untrained Block Teachers were allowed to sign the
attendance register in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, ignoring the claim of the petitioner.
33. Restraining the petitioner from discharging her
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
16/17
duties would, in the opinion of this Court, amount to complete
defiance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded
hereinabove, particularly when neither the Employment Unit
nor the State has taken any decision holding her appointment to
be bad or illegal.
34. In view of the reasons afore-noted, this Court
finds substance in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the
impugned order passed by the District Appellate Authority,
Bhojpur, dated 02.09.2023 in Appeal Case No. 13/2018, as also
the order passed by the Chairperson (A) of the State Appellate
Authority dated 09.06.2025/28.05.2025 in Case No. Appeal T-
11/2024, are hereby set aside.
35. The concerned respondents are hereby further
directed to extend all the benefits, including salary and other
perks, as have been extended to identically situated persons who
were granted such benefits in terms of the order passed by the
District Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No. 18/2015 and
other analogous cases dated 24.02.2016, and to allow the
petitioner to discharge her duties, as has been allowed to
other similarly situated untrained teachers, in the light of the
order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.
25298 of 2023.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026
17/17
36. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ
petition stands allowed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
sumit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.10.2026
Transmission Date NA