IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11961 OF 2007 CHANDAN KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAM BALAK GIRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADHODIH, P.O. SATANPUR, P.S. UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR………………… PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, SARVE SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DALSINGSARAI SUB-DIVISION, AT & P.O. & P.S. DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION-CUM- DISTRICT PROGRAM COORDINATOR, SARVE SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, SAMASTIPUR 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, UJIYARPUR BLOCK, SAMASTIPUR 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, UJIYARPUR BLOCK, SAMASTIPUR 9. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, CHAND CHAUR, KARIHARA THROUGH ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, AT CHAND CAUR, KARIHARA, P.O. SATANPUR, P.S. UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT SAMSTIPUR 10. THE MUKHIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, CHAND CHAUR, KARIHARA, AT CHAND CHAUR, KARIHARA, P.O. SATANPUR, P.S. UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 11. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, CHAND CHAUR, KARIHARA, AT CHAND CHAUR, KARIHARA, P.O. SATANPUR, P.S. UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 12. THE HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY GIRL SCHOOL, PACHPAIKA, P.O. BHGAWANPUR KAMLA, P.S. UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR………………………………………………….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 01.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ - 2 - application for a direction to the respondents to pay his salary of the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, in view of the appointment made by them, due since 2.12.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already filed a representation before the Collector, Samastipur, a copy whereof is Annexure-8 to the writ application. He submits that till now no final order has been passed by the concerned authority. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna in which it is contended that a general order has been issued by the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, Bihar Education Project vide letter no.971 dated 20.9.2007 directing all the Mukhiyas of Patna District to dispense with services of such Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, who were re-appointed or whose services have been terminated after 11.8.2004 and have not produced certificate of passing of the Intermediate Examination with at least 45 % marks. He also contended that as on 11.8.2004 the petitioner had not passed Intermediate Examination with 45% marks. In spite of that, the concerned Mukhiya re- - 3 - appointed petitioner for a period of 11 months ignoring the guidelines of the State Government. It is also contended that in the said letter of the District Magistrate, it was made clear that any salary/honorarium paid to such Panchayat Shiksha Mitra shall be treated as defalcation by the Mukhiya. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said letter of the State Government has not been brought on record by the respondents and petitioner is not aware of any such order. He also contends that no order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner or termination of his services has been received by the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that petitioner is entitled for the salary/honorarium of the period during which he had actually worked as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned respondent for payment of his salary/honorarium of the period during which petitioner had worked as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra - 4 - within one month from today. In case such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the same and examine as to whether in compliance to the direction of the superior authority, the service of the petitioner was ever terminated or not and thereafter final order shall be passed on the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within three months from the date of its filing. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the claims of the petitioner on merits which shall be considered and decided by the respondents within the time fixed as above and strictly in accordance with law. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)