Case Background
This case was a writ petition before the Patna High Court, filed by two retired assistant teachers from minority high schools in Nalanda district. They approached the Court after the Education Department stopped their salary and withheld their retiral dues.
The first petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (English) pursuant to an advertisement dated 17.01.1996. He received his appointment letter on 11.09.1999 and joined his school on 13.09.1999.
The second petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Math) by the Managing Committee of High School, Mafi, Nalanda. His appointment letter is dated 19.10.1999 and he joined on 25.10.1999.
Both schools were minority institutions. Their appointments were approved by the Vidyalaya Seva Board, which was the competent authority for such schools. The first petitioner’s appointment was approved on 20.06.2001 and the second petitioner’s on 17.05.2000.
After about two decades of service, the first petitioner retired on 30.09.2019 and the second on 31.12.2019. However, before they could complete service, their salary payments were suddenly stopped from October 2018. Later, when they retired, their pension and other retiral benefits were also not paid.
The reason given informally by the authorities was that their B.Ed. degrees from Non-Government Sogra College of Education, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda were not valid. Faced with loss of income during service and after retirement, the teachers invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners’ main grievance was that their salary for specific periods had been withheld without any notice or departmental proceeding, and that their retiral dues were also stopped on the ground that their B.Ed. degrees were invalid.
They sought directions to release:
(i) Due salary from 01.10.2018 to 30.09.2019 for the first petitioner, and
(ii) Due salary from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2019 for the second petitioner, along with all other retiral and outstanding dues and consequential benefits.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that there had been no allegation of misconduct, no show-cause notice, and no departmental enquiry at any stage prior to stopping their salaries. For around 20 years, their qualifications and appointments were never questioned.
They pointed out that similarly placed teachers, whose salaries had been withheld on the same ground about Sogra College, had earlier approached the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11116 of 2018 and C.W.J.C. No. 864 of 2020. In those cases, coordinate Benches directed the authorities to pay the withheld salary, and the orders were implemented.
The petitioners also stressed that their appointments in minority schools had been duly approved by the Vidyalaya Seva Board, and they had continuously worked until their retirement. To stop salary and deny retiral benefits at the fag end of their career, they argued, was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.
On behalf of the State, the counter affidavit presented a different picture. The State argued that Non-Government Sogra College of Education, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda was not a recognised institution. A departmental decision to that effect had been issued through Memo No. 71 dated 25.04.2014.
Based on this, the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna issued directions vide letter no. 1604 dated 29.10.2018 to weed out and terminate teachers who had obtained appointments on the basis of training certificates from Sogra College. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda, in turn communicated this to the concerned headmasters through letters no. 4296 and 1537, both dated 03.11.2018.
In reply, the petitioners clarified that petitioner no.1 had taken admission in the B.Ed. course at Sogra College in session 1982-83, and petitioner no.2 in session 1985-86. They stated that Sogra College of Education was a minority institution. The State Government had granted it minority status vide letter no. 1265 dated 15.10.1985. The college was later affiliated to Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.
The petitioners’ stand was that students of Sogra College were permitted to appear in B.Ed. examinations and results were published by order of the then Chief Minister. They argued that Memo No. 71 dated 25.04.2014, declaring Sogra College as unrecognised, could not operate retrospectively, since they had passed their B.Ed. examination around 1991 and were appointed in 1999.
The Court carefully examined Memo No. 71 dated 25.04.2014, produced as Annexure-19 to the petitioners’ reply. That memo recorded that Bihar Staff Selection Commission had kept Sogra College in the list of fake/unrecognised institutions. The Government noted that it had never granted recommendation for any session to Sogra College. On this basis, the memo declared that any appointment based on certificates or mark-sheets from non-government Sogra College of Education was not acceptable.
The same memo also recorded that Sogra College was within the jurisdiction of Magadh University. It acknowledged that Magadh University had allowed the college to conduct examinations and issued certificates without first seeking recommendation from the State Government.
From this, the Court noted one crucial fact: Sogra College was running as an affiliated institution under Magadh University. Examinations were conducted and certificates were issued by order of the University. The record contained ample material to support these facts. Importantly, the State did not dispute that the petitioners’ appointments had been duly approved by the Vidyalaya Seva Board under the Bihar Non Government Secondary School (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 and the 1983 Rules.
The Court also took note that the petitioners’ schools were recognised minority schools. The petitioners had rendered continuous service and had been paid salary almost up to their dates of superannuation. At no stage during their service did the State or any authority raise an objection that their appointments were illegal or that their B.Ed. certificates were invalid.
The Court then referred to a directly comparable case decided by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 280 of 2021, The State of Bihar and Others vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha. In that case, too, a teacher’s salary and retiral dues were denied on the ground that his B.Ed. degree was from Sogra College.
The Division Bench had made strong observations. It held that remuneration for services rendered is a right that cannot be denied, and that delayed payment of undisputed dues is impermissible. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the Bench recognised pension as a hard-earned property right and emphasised that pensionary provisions must be liberally interpreted as social welfare measures.
The Division Bench noted that the State did not have “entirely clean hands.” Office orders had earlier required verification of educational certificates, based on which the teacher’s service had been recognised and arrears paid. Even after knowing that Sogra College was not recognised—following Supreme Court dismissal of a related appeal in 2015—the State continued to utilise the teacher’s services and initiated proceedings only months after his retirement.
In that context, the Division Bench concluded that the teacher’s service of more than three decades could not be disregarded. It held that, in the interest of justice, his services should be recognised and all money earned by him be paid, otherwise his lifetime dedication to the teaching profession would be unfairly maligned.
Justice Harish Kumar applied this reasoning to the present case. He observed that, as shown in Surendra Prasad Sinha’s case, the issue of the validity of B.Ed. degrees from Sogra College had already reached finality when the Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 23619 of 2015 titled Md. Bashar Faruque and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others on 15.09.2015.
Despite this, the State authorities continued to take the benefit of the petitioners’ services until they retired in 2019. The Court held that there was evident laches on the part of the State in enforcing standards for employees in educational institutions.
Considering the approval of appointments by Vidyalaya Seva Board, the long and unbroken service, the absence of any prior objection during service, and the Division Bench judgment, the Court found merit in the petitioners’ writ application.
The Court therefore allowed the writ petition. It directed the concerned respondent authorities to ensure payment of the pending salary for the periods mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment, and to pay all retiral dues to the petitioners as early as possible, preferably within eight weeks from receipt or production of a copy of the order.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for teachers and other employees whose qualifications are later questioned by the government, long after they have served.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that where the State has approved an appointment, taken work for decades, and paid salary, it cannot suddenly stop salary and pension simply on the ground that a degree is from an institution later termed unrecognised.
The decision reinforces that salary for work done and pension for long service are valuable rights, not favours. Even if there is a dispute about qualifications, the State must act promptly and fairly, not wait until retirement and then deny benefits.
For minority institutions and their staff, the judgment also underlines the importance of approval by bodies like the Vidyalaya Seva Board. Once such approval is granted and never questioned during service, the State cannot easily undo its own decisions to the prejudice of employees.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the State withhold salary and retiral dues of teachers after decades of service on the ground that their B.Ed. degree is from Sogra College of Education, later treated as an unrecognised institution?
Answer: No. The Court held that where appointments were duly approved, services were continuously utilised, and no objection was raised during service, salary and retiral dues cannot be denied on this ground. - Issue: Does a later government memo declaring an institution unrecognised operate to retrospectively invalidate earlier qualifications and appointments based on them?
Answer: The Court accepted the petitioners’ stand that such a memo could not be given retrospective effect to deprive them of salary and retiral benefits earned after long approved service. - Issue: What is the State’s obligation regarding timely payment of retiral dues to retired teachers?
Answer: Relying on the Division Bench decision and Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that pension and retiral dues are property rights and must be paid promptly; delay or denial on technical grounds is impermissible.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranjojirao Shinde & another, AIR 1968 SC 1053.
- Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame & Others, (1990) 1 SCC 520.
- State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210.
- Veena Pandey versus Union of India & Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 1078.
- V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala, (2020) 8 SCC 106.
- State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee and others, (2006) 7 SCC 651.
- Md. Bashar Faruque and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., SLP (C) No. 23619 of 2015, order dated 15.09.2015 (Supreme Court).
- The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha, L.P.A. No. 280 of 2021 (Patna High Court Division Bench).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5345 of 2021
Case Title: S.M. Mansoor Akhtar & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 21.11.2022
Citation: 2022(4) PLJR 707
Advocates: Mr. Ram Sagar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to G.P.-23 for the State/respondents.
Nature of the Case: Civil writ petition seeking directions for payment of withheld salary and all retiral dues to two retired assistant teachers of recognised minority schools.
Link to Full Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTM0NSMyMDIxIzEjTg==-oODPplCfKtk=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
