Eligible employees cannot be denied trained pay scale due to authorities’ delay in in-service training.

The petitioners, serving in various teaching and non-teaching positions in schools in Muzaffarpur district, sought grant of the metric-trained pay scale after completion of three years of regular service from the date of appointment or from 1 October 2003, whichever was later, together with consequential benefits.

They contended that, under the applicable Government Circular, they were required to be sent for in-service training within two years of appointment, but the respondents sent them for training belatedly due to administrative delay. They argued that they should not suffer financially because of the respondents’ lapse.

Reliance was placed on Abdus Samad v. State of Bihar & Ors. , CWJC No. 7322 of 2017, decided on 11 April 2018, and Dilip Kumar Sinha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , CWJC No. 14553 of 2023, where similar claims were considered.

The State sought time to obtain instructions regarding the factual and legal position.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to consideration and grant of the metric-trained pay scale after completion of three years of regular service, where their in-service training was delayed due to the respondents’ alleged administrative lapse.

2. Whether the petitioners’ claim should be examined by the District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur in light of the precedents granting similar relief in cases of delayed in-service training.

The Court applied the principle reflected in the relevant Government Circular that employees were required to be sent for in-service training within two years of appointment.

It relied upon the principle stated in Abdus Samad v. State of Bihar & Ors. , CWJC No. 7322 of 2017, and Dilip Kumar Sinha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , CWJC No. 14553 of 2023, that employees should not be made to suffer for the respondents’ failure to send them for in-service training within the prescribed period.

The Court also took note of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, relied upon by the petitioners in seeking similar treatment where the factual circumstances were identical.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioners’ entitlement finally because the State sought instructions and the factual and legal position required individual examination.

Instead, recognizing that the grievance concerned delayed training and the possible application of earlier decisions, the Court directed the petitioners to submit detailed representations to the District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur, enclosing the relevant orders and documents.

The District Education Officer was required to examine each claim individually and, if the claim was found meritorious and factually identical to the cases relied upon by the petitioners, to grant identical relief.

Thus, the Court preserved the governing principle against penalizing employees for administrative delay while leaving the determination of factual parity and entitlement to the competent authority.

The petitioners were directed to file detailed representations before the District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur, preferably within two weeks, along with all relevant documents.

If filed within that period, the District Education Officer was directed to consider each claim individually and, where the claims were meritorious and identical to those recognized in the cited cases, grant identical relief within a further period of eight weeks.