IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8451 of 2009 Kumari Sudha Rani, Daughter of Sri Yamuna Manjhi, Resident-of Village Chithai, P.O.-Hariharpur Kala, District-Siwan. …………Petitioner. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, (Primary Education) Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Collector Siwan, District Siwan. 4.The District Superintendent of Education Officer, Siwan. 5.The Block Development Officer, Block-Gorea Kothi, District-Siwan. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer,- Gorea Kothi, District Siwan. 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayati Raj- Hariharpur Kala, Block-Gorea Kothi, District-Siwan. 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj-Hariharpur Kala, Block-Gorea Kothi, District-Siwan. ……………………Respondents. ----------- 3 28.09.2010 Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to pay her salary, arrears as well as current. She claims that she was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in terms of resolution of Sukh Suvida Committee vide order of the Mukhia dated 9.7.2005. As the fund had not been received, she was not paid her salary for quite some time, whereas later on, on receipt of fund others were paid their salary but petitioner did not get it. It is stated on oath that the petitioner has continued in the School till 2 now. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed representations to all the authorities including the Hon’ble President of India for payment of her salary, but to no avail. Appointment letter of the petitioner is dated 9.7.2005 in the capacity of Shiksha Mitra. It is well known that the contractual service of the Shiksha Mitra was only for eleven months and no one could continue beyond eleven months without renewal of the contract. Petitioner has claimed that she has continued, but there is nothing on record to show that her term of contract was renewed. However, even if the term of contract was not renewed, petitioner was definitely entitled to her honorarium for the period she had worked as Shiksha Mitra. Counter affidavit filed by the District Superintendent of Education does not give a clear picture with regard to the actual working of the petitioner. It is only stated that for any payment not made to the petitioner, Mukhiya is responsible. Since the appointment letter, annexed by petitioner as Annexure-1, prima facie appears to be a valid document, as issued 3 pursuant to the decision of Sukh Suvida Samiti, this Court directs the District Superintendent of Education to examine the matter and find out with regard to actual period of working of the petitioner pursuant to her initial appointment and also whether there was any renewal of contract of service of the petitioner, or not. If he finds that the documents support the appointment and working of the petitioner, he shall take steps for release of admitted honorarium and/or salary of the petitioner for the period she has actual worked. It is expected that the District Superintendent of Education shall make an enquiry and take final steps in the matter preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Prakash/Pradeep ( J.N.Singh, J.)