IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9858 of 2010 Rajani Devi, Wife of Basant Kumar, resident of Bandhu Bigaha, P.O. Usari, Block, Kaler, P.S. Mehandia, Arwal………………………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Arwal. 4. The Block Development Officer, Kaler Block, District Arwal. 5. The Sarpanch, Usari Gram Kutchery, Gram Panchayat Raj, Usari, Block Kaler, District Arwal. 6. Smt. Sanju Kumari, Wife of Ranjai Kumar Singh, resident of Village Hardiya, P.O. Jaipur, P.S. Mehandia, Panchayat Usari, Block Kaler, District Arwal…………………………..Respondents ----------- 2 27.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Block Development Officer dated 02.06.2010, as contained in Annexure- 6. From the order it appears that private respondent was not earlier considered for appointment as Secretary Gram Kutchery as she was having Madhyama degree although on the basis of marks she was above the petitioner in the panel. However, later on, instructions were received that candidates, who were having 2 Madhyama degree with higher marks and were not appointed, should be appointed if they ranked senior in the merit list treating Madhyama degree as equivalent to matriculation. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that directions were issued by the Department itself for treating Madhyama degree as equivalent to matriculation in the light of a judgment of this Court. In terms of the said direction of the Department, candidates who were earlier not considered on account of Madhyama degree, were considered and appointed if they ranked higher in the panel. He submits that the same has been done in this case also and, therefore, by Annexure-6, the Block Development Officer has directed for appointment of private respondent as Gram Kutchery Secretary. He points out that this order has been issued under the orders of the Collector. In this case petitioner neither challenges the order of the Collector contained in letter no.206 dated 15.05.2010 nor she challenges the direction of the 3 Department to all concerned Employment Agencies to consider cases of the candidates having Madhyama degree and appoint them treating their Madhyama degree as equivalent to matriculation in terms of the orders of this Court. Apparently, Annexure-6 is a consequential order and based on the orders of the Collector and the Department. Since parent orders are not under challenge, no error can be found in the impugned order of the Block Development Officer as contained in Annexure-6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been paid her honorarium for the period she had actually worked. He also submits that he has instruction that petitioner is still continuing on the post and private respondent has not yet been appointed and she has not as yet joined. If that is so, it goes without saying that the petitioner will be entitled for her honorarium for the period she had actually worked and for the period she continues to work on the post, till private respondent is appointed on the post 4 removing the petitioner. In the circumstances, without interfering with the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6, this Court directs that dues of the petitioner must be paid to her within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if she is still continuing on the post, her honorarium shall be paid regularly till she is removed pursuant to implementation of Annexure-6. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)