Jharkhand High Court
Dhaneshwar Manjhi And Ors vs Education on 20 November, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 720 of 2013
1.Dhaneshwar Manjhi
2.Bholanath Majhi
3.Md. Islam
4.Rathi Matho
5.Somay Majhi ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand
2.District Superintendent of Educationcum
District Programme Officer, SeraikellaKharsawan,
3.Block Education Extension Officer,
SeraikellaKharsawan ... ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Kumar, J.C. to Sr. S.C. II
04/20.11.2013The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of letter no. 09.05.2012 and 12.05.2012. A further prayer for payment of honorarium from March, 2009 has also been made.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 taking a plea that since a direction was issued under letter dated 17.03.2009 directing the Village Education Committee not to pay further honorarium to the parateachers and since in violation of the said instruction, the petitioners continued in service, they cannot be paid honorarium as claimed by them in the present proceeding. In the counteraffidavit, it is stated:
6. "That State Project Director vide its letter no.
2123 dated 20.01.06 directed to review the opening of Education guarantee schools (EGS) which has been opened in violation of the norms. After verification it was found that some 83 schools were opened in violation of the said rule of 1 Km. Distance. Then, as per instruction from the State Education Project office, Ranchi, it was decided to close such schools which had been opened in violation of the norms of 1 Km. Distance.
7. That as per decision of the District Primary Education Committee meeting, all such schools were closed/merged with the nearby schools which were opened in violation of the norms, and as per direction of the State Project office vide letter no. 23 dated 03.04.08, then District Superintendent of Education cumDistrict Programme officer, Seraikella Kharsawan issued a letter village Education Committee vide letter no. 1521 dated 25.09.2008 to all terminated the contract of the said para teachers.
8. That again a letter was issued by then DSE cumDPO SeraikellaKharsawan vide letter no. 2097 dated 17.03.2009 to comply the instruction of the State Project Director, Ranchi and directed the village Education Committee to cancel the selection of those parateachers, who had been selected in such school opened in violation of the norms.
9. That the village Education committee was provided with the honorarium upto March, 2009 and it was instructed that no further claim of honorarium will be entertained after this period and it will be the sole responsibility of the concerned village Education committee.
10. That such parateachers were given the honorarium till March 2009 and their services were no longer required by the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and such instruction was clearly given the village Education committee.
11. That as per resolution of the District Establishment committee, these para teachers were given honorarium through village Education committee and it was the duty of the village Education committee to cancel the selection of these para teachers after March 2009.
12. That these para teachers were no longer required to work in the school after instruction that their schools were opened in violation of the norms and their selection should be cancelled by the concerned village Education committee.
13. That after instruction vide letter no. 2097 dated 17.03.09 no further honorarium was sent to the village Education committee for these para teachers.
14. That later on, it was come to the notice of the deponent that some para teachers are still working in the school, even without getting honorarium and in violation of the instruction to cancel the selection of such para teachers then again the said letter no. 285 dated 9.5.2012 was issued to comply the previous direction given to them vide annexureC and D.
15. That only those schools were merged and the post of the para teachers in those very merged schools were abolished which were opened against the norms and parameters of the Govt. and this decision was known to all those merged para teachers, way back in the year 2006 only, who are petitioners in this case. Therefore, this was not at all an abrupt decision and even knowingly the petitioners deliberately disobeyed the unanimous decision of the District Elementary Education Committee and falsely claiming their service and honorarium from the respondent whereas they were selected by the village Education Committee.
16. That respondents have never appointed the petitioners as para teachers. They were selected by the respective village Education Committee entirely on contractual basis and the BEEO transfers the honorarium of the para teachers on the basis of the certified absentee statement of these para teachers by the concerned VEC, as every VEC were clearly informed the decision of the District Elementary Education Committee about the abolishment of the post of these merged para teachers. And hence the respondent are not responsible for nonpayment of honorarium to these para teachers. Even if after the respective VEC continued the service of these para teachers, it was not the fault of the respondent and rather the fault of the respective VEC. It can be judged by the very statement of the petitioners that it they were not paid their Honorarium back from the year 2009 then on what ground they were working in the same school and they do not ever claimed their just right for honorarium from the respective VEC."
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
4. Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were appointed in the year, 2002 pursuant to the Resolution dated 04.08.2002 and they continued in service for more than 7 years when allegedly an instruction was issued for not paying honorarium to the para teachers. The petitioners who continued in service thereafter cannot be denied payment of honorarium. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that even if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders dated 09.05.2012 and 12.05.2012; the petitioners are entitled for a direction for payment of honorarium between the period April, 2009 and May, 2012.
5. As against the above, Mr. Shrawan Kumar, learned J.C. to Sr. S.C. II, appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken in the counter affidavit, has submitted that since there was an instruction issued by the competent authority for not paying honorarium since April, 2009, the petitioners cannot be paid honorarium for the period after April, 2009. It has further submitted that even the initial appointment of the petitioners was irregular.
6. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that the petitioners who were appointed in the year, 2002 on the post of para teachers and who continued to perform their duties and received honorarium, were directed to continue even after April, 2009. The alleged instruction issued on 17.03.2009 was never brought to the notice of the petitioners and there is nothing recorded in the impugned orders dated 09.05.2012 and 12.05.2012 which would indicate that the petitioners were ever informed about the decision of the Government and therefore, the petitioners who continued in service even after March, 2009 are entitled for payment of honorarium till the time they were permitted to discharge their duties. I find force in the submission raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and accordingly, I hereby direct respondent no. 2 to make payment of honorarium to the petitioners between the period April, 2009 and May, 2012, if not paid.
7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R. Shekhar Cp 2