IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3014 of 2008 SHIV MANDAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04. 24.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A show has been filed on behalf of the State annexing the office order dated 31st of December 2008, which has been passed on the representation of petitioner filed pursuant to the order dated 01.06.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9334 of 2006. A show cause annexing the office order dated 31st December, 2008 (Annexure-E) has been filed on behalf of the State. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the order dated 01.06.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9334 of 2006 has been complied with and the claim of the petitioner was duly considered on the basis of the relevant document and found not admissible. It is further submitted that in view of the above the contempt application must fail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however submits that the grievance of the petitioner was in two fold: - First that since petitioner had worked as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra for the period 19.05.2003 to June 2006. He is entitled to the 2 admissible honorarium for working during the aforesaid period as he was appointed by the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat as per letter dated 24th of April 2003 and reappointed as per the letter dated 05.11.2004. The second grievance of the petitioner, as raised in his representation was with regard to the emoluments as Panchayat Teacher with effect from 01.07.2006, on coming into force of the statutory rule for appointment of Panchayat Teacher which came into effect on 01.07.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the claims of the petitioner have been considered and dealt with in the order contained in Annexure – E, however, the claim have been denied on an untenable ground that the petitioner was initially appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra at the age of 38 years whereas the maximum permissible age limit is 30 years without considering the fact that the age of the petitioner was relaxed and as such he was appointed. Accordingly, in the representation petitioner claimed for the emoluments for the period he worked i.e. 19.05.2003 to June 2006. It is further submitted that petitioner was also entitled to claim for the emoluments as Panchayat Teacher with effect from 01.07.2006 which has been rejected without 3 valid justification by holding that the petitioner was not working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 01.07.2006, as such, he did not become Panchayat Teacher. Having considered the submissions and upon perusal of the order contained in Annexure-E, office order dated 31st of December 2008, it appears that both the aforesaid claims of the petitioner as mentioned in his representation have been considered and disposed of by a reasoned order rejecting the representation. This Court is, however, not expressing any opinion on the merits of the order. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that this contempt application need not proceed any further, and the same stands disposed of. In course of hearing it was submitted that the petitioner will be at liberty to assail the order in an appropriate proceeding. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)