IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1402 of 2009. - - - - - 1. RAJESHWAR RAI THE MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ PURBI TURHAPATI, S. SIRISIAN , DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE WEST CHAMPARAN 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER CHANPATIA BLOCK, WEST CHAMPARAN. 5. THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ PURBI TURHAPATI BLOCK CHANPATIYA, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN 6. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL UTTAR TOLA, TURHAPATI, P.S. SIRISIAN , WEST CHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) 7. THE SECRETARY , PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 8. NAJMA KHATOON W/O MAHBOOB ALAM , D/O MUBARAK ANSARI R/OVILL TURHAPATI, TOLA , P.S. SIRSIAN , DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- For the appellant : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar No.2,Adv. For the Res.No.8 : Mr.S.M.Nemutullah Mr.M.A.Rahman, Advs. For the State : Mr. P.P.Verma, A.G.P. Dr.Mankeshwar Singh, A.C. to A.G.P. 04 21.04.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 1st September 2009 passed by the single Judge in C.W.J.C.No. 17081 of 2008 wherein the respondents herein have stopped the payment of salary to the writ petitioner for the period she served. The learned single Judge heard the matter at length and directed the Mukhiya, the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Raj, Turhapatti and the Block Education Extension Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah to make payment of arrears of salary as well as the current salary to the writ-petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mukhiya submitted that no notice was given to him and on such condition, a report was called for which was submitted. It is submitted that no notice was ever issued. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, the Mukhiya has filed the present L.P.A. So far the merits of the case of the appellant-Mukiya is concerned it is stated that the writ petitioner was not qualified on the post of Panchayat Teacher and her services were sought to be terminated, but however, Annexure-5 goes to show that the Block Education Officer issued letter to the Mukhiya to the effect that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was valid and, as such, payment of salary be made to her. During the course of argument, learned counsel submitted that the services of the writ petitioner were terminated on 25th January, 2011 which indicates that she was in service till t hat date. Under the circumstances, having heard the counsel appearing on behalf of Mukiya, we direct him to make payment of salary to the writ-petitioner (respondent no.8 herein) upto 25th January 2011 within a period of 3 months. With the above observations, the L.P.A. is dismissed. However, as prayed for, learned counsel for the respondents is given liberty to challenge the order date d 25th January 2011 before the appropriate forum. Jay/ ( T.Meena Kumari,J ) ( Akhilesh Chandra,J )