IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13438 of 2009 1. MANOJ KUMAR 'MANOHAR' S/O SRI SUBALAL YADAV VILL-GIRIPATTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, P.O. & P.S. RAGHOPUR, DISTT. SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUPAUL 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SUPAUL 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BIRPUR, SUPAUL 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RAGHOPUR, SUPAUL 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER-CUM- BLOCK RESOURCE CENTRE CO-ORDINATOR, RAGHOPUR, DISTT. SUPAUL 9. THE PRAKHAND PRAMUKH RAGHOPUR, SUPAUL 10. THE SECRETARY OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAGHOPUR, SUPAUL 11. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAGHOPUR, SUPAUL 2 8.1.2010 Petitioner’s grievance is that his payment of salary has been stopped arbitrarily from November, 2006 and till date payment of salary has not been resumed. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 21.5.2005.On completion of eleven months contractual period, it was further extended for eleven months. Thereafter he was absorbed on the post of Panchayat teacher as provided under Rule 20(ii) of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions)Rule 2006.Petitioner is still continuing on the post and without assigning any reason to the petitioner, his 2 payment of salary was stopped from November, 2006. Subsequently when the petitioner made a requisition under Right to Information Act, he came to know that some inquiries were conducted questioning the legality of his appointment. In that inquiry also the appointment of the petitioner was found to be made as per the procedure provided under the guidelines of appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Petitioner and one Vijay Kumar were applicants for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Both had equal percentage of marks. Their qualification was also similar. In that circumstance, as per the guidelines, weightage was to be given to such candidates whose date of birth is earlier. Petitioner was four years older than Vijay Kumar and accordingly, he was appointed on the post. In the inquiry report submitted by the Members of the Sukh Suvidha Committee, it has clearly been mentioned that petitioner’s appointment was in consonance with the provisions mentioned in the guidelines. There was no illegality or irregularity in his appointment, as such no reason for not making payment of salary to the petitioner. Despite the submission of the inquiry report of the Sukh Suvidha Committee still payment has not been resumed to the petitioner. 3 This application is being disposed of giving direction to the Block Education Extension Officer, Supaul, District Superintendent of Education, Supaul, Prakhand Pramukh, Raghopur, Supaul, Secretary of Gram Panchayat Raghopur, Supaul and the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Raghopur, Supaul to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner with effect from November, 2006 till date. Petitioner should also be paid his month to month regular salary continuously. The arrears of salary must be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar