IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18769 of 2008 MAMTA KUMARI SHARMA @ KUMARI MAMTA SHARMA @ MAMTA DEVI OF RAM BILASH SHARMA, WIFE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – PAKHOPALI, P.O. RUDALPUR, P.S. BHOREY, PRAKHAND – BHOREY, DISTRICT – GOPALGANJ. …….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ. 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, GOPALGANJ. 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GOPALGANJ. 6. PRAKHAND VIKASH PADADHIKARI, BHOREY, DISTRICT – GOPALGANJ. 7. PRAKHAND SHIKSHA PRASAR PADADHIKARI, BHOREY, DISTRICT – GOPALGANJ. 8. GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, SISAI, PRAKHAND – BHOREY, DISTRICT – GOPALGANJ, THROUGH ITS MUKHIYA. 9. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SISAI, PRAKHAND – BHOREY, DISTRICT – GOPALGANJ. 10. SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, SISAI, PRAKHAND – BHOREY, DISTRICT – GOPALGANJ. …. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 14.01.2010 I.A. No. 6953 of 2009 This interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the writ application filed by the petitioner be disposed of in the light of the decision reported in 2009(4) PLJR paged 318. The impugned order, which is under challenge in the present writ application, is the same, which was under challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 6174 of 2008. The order under challenge in the present writ application is dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Collector, Gopalganj in Misc. Case No. 123 of 2007cancelling the initial engagement of - 2 - Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Gram Panchayat Raj, Sisai and also as a consequential of that cancel his absorption on the post of Panchayat teacher. Same impugned order was challenged in reported decision in C.W.J.C. No. 6174 of 2008. The impugned order as well as the consequential order issued by the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sisai vide Memo No. 1 dated 3.3.2008 was quashed. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post with all consequential benefits. It was also directed that the arrears of salary for the period 10.5.2006 to 30.6.2006 and 1.10.2007 to 10.3.2008. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the reported decision, the impugned order is also quashed with respect to the petitioner. The similar relief i.e. reinstatement of the petitioner with effect from the date of termination with all consequential benefits. This application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)