IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10817 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Nilam Devi W/O Amrit Das R/O Vill Hathiaunda Sinduriy Tola, P.S.Bihariganj, Distt-Madhepura, At Present Angan Wari Sewika, Center No. 65, Sinduriya Tola Kendra, Distt-Madhepura .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , Through The District Magistrate Madhepura, Bihar 2. The District Programme Officer Madhepura 3. The Child Development Project Officer Bihariganj, Distt-Madhepura .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan I For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc1) ====================================================== 3 09-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is an Angan Bari Sevika aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2009 and the consequential order dated 10.5.2010 requiring her to deposit a sum of Rs.22,092.00 as the recovery of the Poshahar amount alleged not to have been distributed by her. The impugned order is acknowledged to have been preceded by a show cause notice. That was the only minimum requirement to be followed while dealing with persons like the petitioner who are an agent of the State Government for dissemination of a welfare scheme and cannot claim parity in terms and conditions as government servants. Counsel for the petitioner submits orally that he has received subsequent instructions that others imposed Patna High Court CWJC No.10817 of 2010 (3) dt.09-11-2011 2 similar punishment has been stayed. It is not possible for the Court to pass any orders on such oral submissions especially when the respondents have had no opportunity to meet the same. Learned counsel for the State has rightly raised an objection to the remedy of appeal available to the petitioner before the District Magistrate against the impugned orders dated 24.12.2009 and 10.5.2010. If the petitioner prefers such appeal within 30 days from today, let the District Magistrate consider the same and dispose it off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of such memo of appeal. If the petitioner raises issues of disparity in punishment between co-delinquents, the District Magistrate is required to deal with the same adequately as the law stands settled that even where punishment be concerned, persons similarly situated have to be dealt with in a similar manner under the mandate of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. The writ application is disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)