Facts
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2012 among 34,540 teachers appointed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in SLP (C) No. 26824 of 2012 and the recommendation of the Justice S. K. Chattopadhyay Committee.
Source reference: p. 2His appointment was terminated on 31 January 2020 because the institution from which he obtained his B.Ed. degree was alleged to be unrecognised.
Source reference: p. 2During the pendency of his writ petition, he and others were reinstated by order dated 22 August 2024, but the respondents denied him salary for the period between termination and his superannuation on 31 October 2022, relying on the principle of “no work, no pay”.
Source reference: p. 2–4The petitioner amended his prayers to seek the withheld salary, relying in part on Shambhu Paswan v. State of Bihar.
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to salary for the period from his termination on 31 January 2020 until his superannuation on 31 October 2022, despite not having worked during that period.
Source reference: p. 3–52. Whether the respondents could deny that salary by applying the principle of “no work, no pay,” given the circumstances of the petitioner’s appointment and termination.
Source reference: p. 5–6Law Applied
The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in LPA No. 1254 of 2016 and analogous cases, which held that teachers appointed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions under the supervision of Justice S. K. Chattopadhyay could not be terminated for alleged deficiencies in verification of their qualifications unless the Supreme Court permitted it.
Source reference: p. 5–6The Division Bench also observed that the State ought to have been more vigilant when making the appointments and that verification could not be undertaken belatedly in the circumstances considered there.
Source reference: p. 5–6Reasoning
The petitioner’s appointment and eligibility had been considered through the process supervised by the Justice S. K. Chattopadhyay Committee under the Supreme Court’s directions.
Source reference: p. 5–6Applying the Division Bench’s ruling, the Court held that the later termination on the ground of the B.Ed. institution’s recognition could not justify withholding salary in this case.
Source reference: p. 5–6It therefore rejected the State’s “no work, no pay” argument and found the salary-denial direction in the reinstatement order unsustainable.
Source reference: p. 5–6Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the District Education Officer, East Champaran, to calculate and pay the petitioner’s salary for 31 January 2020 to 31 October 2022 within three months of receipt or production of the order.
If payment was not made within that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would accrue from the date the writ petition was filed until payment.
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
Vishnudeo Prasad SahvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
