IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9507 of 2008 Sahnaz Bano, Wife of Khaliqur Rahman, resident of village Baida, Panchayat Akauna, P.S. Amas, District Gaya……………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Amas, District Gaya. 5. The Block Development Officer, Amas, District Gaya. 6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Akauna, Block Amas, District Gaya. 7. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Akauna, Block Amas, District Gaya. 8. The Headmaster, Urdu Madhya Vidyalaya, Baida, Akauna Panchayat, Block Amas, District Gaya…………………………………….Respondents -------------- 2 19.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner’s prayer in this writ application is confined only for a direction for payment of her salary due since September, 2006 till today on the ground that in terms of Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamvali, 2006 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2008), he became a Panchayat Teacher since then and has continued in the school thereafter. In support of the claim regarding her continuance in the school, she has produced 2 certain documents along with the writ application. Although the writ application was filed on 03.07.2008 with service of two copies of the same in the office of the learned Advocate General, no counter affidavit has been filed to deny the claim of the petitioner in respect of her continuance in the school. In the circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned District Programme Officer to make an enquiry with regard to validity of appointment of petitioner as Panchayat Teacher and her continuance in the school. If on enquiry his findings are in favour of the petitioner, he is directed to see to it that petitioner is paid her salary, arrears as well as current, preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not examined entitlement of the petitioner for salary as per law. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)