IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10563 of 2009 ISHWAR NARAYAN SHUKLA, S/O LATE VISHWANATH SHUKLA, R/O VILLAGE BARARI JAGDISH, P.S.- UCHAKAGAON, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GOPALGANJ. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THAVE, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, THAVE BLOCK, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT SAMERA THAVE BLOCK, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT SAMERA THAVE BLOCK, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 24.09.2010 It appears that due to some confusion as to whether the Institute in question was recognized for the session in which the petitioner passed his examination of teachers training, or not, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a letter of the Department dated 5.8.2010 enclosing list of Institutions which enjoyed recognition for the relevant periods and which are not recognized by the Government now. The list shows that this Institute in question was recognized from 1983-85 to 1988-90. Thereafter, it 2 was not further extended. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joined 1985-87 session of Teachers Training in the Institution and passed the same. During which period the Institution enjoyed the recognition. Therefore, the ground for stopping of his salary is non est. He also submits that in earlier letter of the Department the same position was indicated as evident from Annexure-5. Still the respondents have not considered the same and have not issued orders for release of his salary. From Annexure-7, it appears that the respondent District Superintendent of Education had made some query from the Mukhiya/Panchayat Secretary and the Panchayat Secretary, vide Annexure- 8, had replied that the position with regard to recognition of the Institute for the relevant session was not cleared and, therefore, the payment of the petitioner was withheld. In view of the position made clear by the said Government letters the matter can be well examined and decided by the respondent District Superintendent of Education. It is clear from the letter of the Government that the Institution had the recognition for the session 1983-85 to 1988-90. Therefore, if it is 3 established that the petitioner had joined the session in the Institution during this period and had passed the examination, he had valid degree from the Institution. Therefore, this Court directs the petitioner to produce the said two letters of the Government along with the list of Institution and clarify this position to the respondent District Superintendent of Education. He shall also produce his certificate of having passed the examination from the Institute in 1985-87 sessions. If the claims of the petitioner are found to be established, the District Superintendent of Education shall pass orders in respect of the payment of the salary of the petitioner preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)