IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20144 of 2010 1. Manorma Kumari W/O Chandrashekhar Manjhi R/O At+P.O.- Dhanushi, P.S.- Rumi Saidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi 2. Sogarath Manjhi S/O Gena Manjhi R/O At + P.O.- Anhari, P.S.- Riga, Distt.- Sitamarhi 3. Sayeena Khatoon D/O Reza R/O Vill.- Tarma, P.O.- Baligadh, P.S.- Runni Saidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi--------------------------------petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The District Superintendent of Education, District Sitamarhi 4.The Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Block Runni Saidpur, District Sitamarhi 5.The Block Education Extension Officer, Block Runni Saidpur, District Sitamarhi 6.The Block Pramukh, Block Runni Saidpur, District Sitamarhi 7.The Member Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi--- respondents ----------- For the petitioners :M/S Manish Kumar,Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocates For the State :M/S Manoj Kumar Ambastha,G.P.14 Sanjay Kumar Pandey, AC to G.P.14 ------ 4. 12.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners were appointed as Block Teachers by letters dated 17.8.2010 and claim to have joined on 18.8.2010. It is their stand that they had continued to work on the said posts till 16.11.2010 and after the intervening holidays for five days they were prevented from working from 22.11.2010 on the basis of letter dated 10.11.2010 2 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi pursuant to the earlier letter dated 13.9.2010 on the ground that their appointment letters had been issued after 12.8.2010, the last date fixed for the issuance of appointment letter by the Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar. It is stated that again by letter dated 28.12.2010 the petitioners were allowed to work and joined their duties on the next date and they are working since then. On account of subsequent action of the authorities during the pendency of the writ petition the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed and the only claim of the petitioners is for payment of salary for the period from 18.8.2010 till they were prevented from working on 22.11.2010 and about continuity in service since ultimately the authorities have themselves come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the appointment of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners had worked pursuant to their earlier appointment letters and they are entitled to any payment. 3 In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the District Superintendent of Eduation/District Education Officer to consider and dispose of the claims of the petitioners after verifying the fact as to whether they had joined and were working since 18.8.2010 or not and, in case, it is found that the petitioners had been working then they must be paid salary for the said period and the question of continuity of their service since their earlier date of joining should also be considered by the said Officers and, in case, their claims are rejected the same must be done by passing a speaking order. Let the claims of the petitioners be considered within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/