IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9040 of 2008 SMT.PUNAM KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 16.3.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the State as well as the counsel appearing for respondent no.7. Petitioner joined as Siksha Mitra in Prathmik Vidyalaya Kap Sahar (Hindi) on 10.5.2005. She has now been absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher under the provisions of Rule 20 (ii) (iii) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Primary Teachers Rule 2006. Grievance of the petitioner is that she is not being paid her salary though since the date of her joining she continuously discharging her duty. As stated in the writ application for all these defects, the persons who is responsible is present Mukhia, who was elected in the year 2006. For payment of petitioners salary, a cheque was issued by the Panchayat Secretary on 11.8.2007. As the cheque would have been encashed only when Mukhia would have also countersigned it. The Mukhia respondent no.7 refused to counter sign it as such no payment could be made to the petitioner. Petitioner represented before the Block Development Officer, he directed the Mukhia vide letter no.351 dated 6.11.2007 to make payment and submit compliance report. The direction of the B.D.O. was ignored. Similarly the District Superintendent of Education also directed to make payment, but this was also not considered by the Mukhia. The District Magistrate repeatedly directed the Mukhia for making payment of salary, but on one or other pretext payment was not made to the petitioner. The Mukhia also ignored the direction of the Divisional Commissioner. When a specific direction was issued by this Court to respondent no.7 to be physically present in court and make payment to the petitioner, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the cheque has already been issued in favour of the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,11,000/- (One lac eleven thousand). In the counter affidavit an imaginary controversy regarding existence of 2 particular plot has been raised. It has been stated that since the petitioner was not working in the school where she was appointed, payment was not being made. No such complaint has been made by any other person. The District Magistrate of the concerned district, the B.D.O. the District Superintendent of Education no one has found any such irregularity in case of the petitioner except the respondent no.7. This shows the intention of respondent no.7. The reason for not making payment must have been something else which has not been disclosed. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that still some arrears have not been paid. The respondent no.7 , Mukhia, Gram Panchayast Raj, Phulwari, Saran is directed to make payment of entire arrears to the petitioner. He is further directed not to put any obstacle in future in payment of salary to the petitioner on regular basis without putting any hindrance. In case of some false pretext if such obstacle is put by the respondent no.7, it will be proper for the concerned District Magistrate or the Block Development Officer to take legal action against respondent no.7. This application is disposed of. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)