IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12791 of 2007 PHOOL KUMARI, W/O SRI ARVIND KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE- LITIYAHI, P.S.-PIPRA BAZAR, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SUPAUL. 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SUPAUL, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMET OFFICER, PIPRA, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PIPRA, SUPAUL. 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, DINAPATTI PANCHAYAT, P.S.-PIPRA, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. 9. THE MUKHIYA-CUM-CHAIRMAN, SUPERINTENDENT SUKH SUBIDHA SAMITTEE LITIYAHI, DINAPATTI, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. 10. THE HEADMASTER, B.A.M.S. BASHA, LITIYAHI, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 13.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents for payment of his salary of the post of Shiksha Mitra with effect from 12.5.2005 till date. The petitioner claims, by annexing certain documents and attendance register, that she is continuing in service since her appointment on 12.5.2005, but has not been paid her salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some enquiry was held in which it has been found that she is continuing in service since then. A counter affidavit has been filed in the - 2 - case by the respondents along with an order of the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat as well as Headmaster of the school dated 5.8.2005, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-A, to contend that the petitioner’s services stood terminated at that very time and, therefore, she was not entitled to any salary on the basis of another letter of Mukhiya dated 27.1.2006 addressed to the District Public Education Officer, annexed as Annexure-B. It is further contended that the petitioner was appointed as Lok Sikshak and, therefore, it is not possible that the petitioner could continue on two posts simultaneously. Apparently, this is a disputed of question of fact as to whether the petitioner actually worked uninterruptedly as Siksha Mitra or her services were terminated and later on she was appointed and actually joined as Lok Shikshak. Learned counsel for the parties, therefore, agree that the matter may be remitted back to the District Appellate Authority to ascertain the actual facts from the records and by due enquiry with regard to actual status of the petitioner and decide the matter finally. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Appellate Authority in - 3 - view of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit within a period of one month from today. If such a appeal is filed before the District Appellate Authority, the authority shall call for the entire records from the concerned officials and examine the same and come to a final conclusion with regard to the claim of continuance of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra now converted as Panchayat Sikshak or the claim of the respondents that the services of the petitioner stood terminated by virtue of Anneuxre-A. In case it comes to a final and definite conclusion that the petitioner was never terminated and she continued as Siksha Mitra and her appointment was further extended till the post was re-designated as Panchayat Sikshak and the services of the petitioner stood converted as Panchayat Sikshak, then only he shall pass appropriate orders in respect of payment of salary of the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ application is disposed of with above observations and directions. Arvind/ (J.N. Singh, J.)