Patna HC Rejects Contract Panchayat Teacher’s Regular-Pay Claim: His Compassionate-Appointment Recommendation Came After July 1, 2006 Cutoff

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner, whose compassionate-appointment claim was recommended on 12 July 2006, was entitled to regular appointment or regular pay-scale benefits under the law applicable to claims recommended before 1 July 2006.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to regular appointment or regular pay scale because his compassionate-appointment claim was recommended after 1 July 2006.

It also directed

It found no ground to set aside Memo No. 336 or grant the requested relief and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit; any pending applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner’s mother, an Assistant Teacher, died in harness.

pp. 2–3

The District Compassionate Appointment Committee recommended his claim on 12 July 2006, after the 1 July 2006 cut-off.

pp. 2–3, 5–6

Before that recommendation, he had been appointed as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 8 May 2005, and his services were absorbed as a Block Teacher from 1 July 2006 on a contractual basis.

pp. 2–3, 5–6

He sought regular appointment and regular pay-scale benefits, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision concerning compassionate-appointment claims recommended before the cut-off.

pp. 1, 3–4, 7

He also challenged Memo No. 336 dated 7 March 2019, which restricted the benefit to parties in the relevant case.

pp. 1, 3–4, 7

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner, whose compassionate-appointment claim was recommended on 12 July 2006, was entitled to regular appointment or regular pay-scale benefits under the law applicable to claims recommended before 1 July 2006.

pp. 5–7

ii.Whether Memo No. 336 dated 7 March 2019 was liable to be set aside insofar as it restricted the benefit to persons who were parties to the relevant Supreme Court case.

p. 1, 7

03Law Applied

The Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, and the Full Bench decision in State of Bihar v. Rajeev Ranvijay, 2010 (3) PLJR 294, were considered in relation to compassionate appointment in Panchayat Teacher/Block Teacher posts.

p. 5

Applying Mukesh Kumar and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, 2017 (2) PLJR (SC) 263, the Court stated that candidates whose claims for Class III or Class IV posts were recommended before 1 July 2006 were entitled to regular appointment or regular pay scale; candidates recommended after that date were not.

pp. 5–6

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s claim was recommended on 12 July 2006, placing it beyond the cut-off date identified in Mukesh Kumar.

pp. 6–7

His earlier appointment as a Panchayat Teacher and subsequent absorption as a Block Teacher did not bring his later-recommended compassionate-appointment claim within the class entitled to the benefit.

pp. 6–7

Because the petitioner was outside that class, the Court found that he had not established a legal right affected by the restriction in Memo No. 336 and that no basis existed to interfere with the communication or grant regular pay-scale benefits.

p. 7

05Holding

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to regular appointment or regular pay scale because his compassionate-appointment claim was recommended after 1 July 2006.

pp. 7–8

It found no ground to set aside Memo No. 336 or grant the requested relief and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit; any pending applications were disposed of.

pp. 7–8

LawLens.Patna High Court

Original Court PDF