(Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
Imran Alam & Anr. _______________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
State of Bihar & Ors. _____________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No(s). 9441/2016, decided on July 12, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable in the High Court at the instance of the appellants.
2. There is no dispute that the appellants were appointed some time in July, 2011 as Maulvi in Madarsa Islamia Arbia, Naeemia, Sonebarsa, Maharajganj, District Siwan in Bihar.
3. The appellants were regular employees and they were being paid salary in terms of the Resolution of the State Government which was granting aid to the Madarsa in which the appellants were employed.
4. There is no dispute that the arrangement continued till some time in 2014. This arrangement continued notwithstanding the fact that a Resolution was passed by the Education Department of the Government of Bihar on 31.08.2013 whereby the salary of the persons who have been appointed in Madarsa after 15.02.2011 was revised and fixed at a specified quantum. The application of the Resolution dated 31.08.2013 is disputed by the appellants.
5. Being aggrieved by the fact that their salary was reduced as a result of the Resolution dated 31.08.2013 post February 2014, the appellants preferred a writ petition in Patna High Court.
6. The writ petition was taken up for consideration by the Division Bench which passed the impugned judgment and order dated 23.06.2016. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court held that the appellants had no cause of action against the State and if anyone is aggrieved, it was the Madarsas which were aggrieved and they should have approached the Court for grant of relief.
7. In our opinion, the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellants were not aggrieved by the Resolution dated 31.08.2013. In fact, they were directly affected by the Resolution since their salary was not revised but fixed at a specified quantum. Therefore, the appellants suffered a financial loss subject to the implementation of Resolution dated 31.08.2013 with effect from February 2014.
8. That being the position, in our opinion, the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition and ought to have decided the matter on merits.
9. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. We make it clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the disputes between the parties.
10. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the salary has not been paid to the appellants even at the fixed rate even though the appellants are carrying on their duties.
11. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar says that he will look into the matter and will ensure that the fixed salary due to the appellants is paid without prejudice within a period of eight weeks from today.
12. The civil appeal is disposed of with no costs.
Civil Appeal No(s). 9441/2016
Imran Alam & Anr ________________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
State of Bihar & Ors ______________________________ Respondent(s)
Date: 12-07-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Parvez Bashista, Adv.
Mr. Munesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Debasis Misra, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR
Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv.
Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
13. The civil appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
14. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
———
