IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.807 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12565 of 2010 ===================================================== Pramod Sharma, S/o. Sri Ramchandra Sharma, R/o. Vill. Ketharia, P.S. Dumara, District- Sitamarhi. …. …. Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, District- Sitamarhi. 5. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. 7. The Block Development Officer, Dumra, District- Sitamarhi. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Dumara, District- Sitamarhi. 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Misraulia, P.S. Dumara, District- Sitamarhi. 10. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Misraulia, P.S. Dumara, District- Sitamarhi. 11. The Headmaster, Government Middle School, Ketharia, P.S. Dumara, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Respondent/s ===================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chakradhari Shar Singh Aa ===================================================== 02. 24.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the writ court as also orders impugned in the writ petition. Annexure-1 to the writ petition was an order by B.D.O., Dumra directing the appellant to return paper and documents relating to census of 2011 in the light of intimation received that the appellant’s engagement as teacher has already been cancelled. The Patna High Court LPA No.807 of 2011 (2) dt.24-08-2011 2 real controversy as appears from Annexure-2 which was under challenge in the writ petition is whether the appellant was entitled for payment of honorarium since and after 2005. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi has noted the case of the appellant that his service as Shiksha Mitra on contract basis for 11 months had not been extended since 2005 and no honorarium was paid to him. In that view of the matter, the writ court rightly dismissed the writ petition because there was no right to get the service extended on or from 2005 because engagement for 11 months on contract basis was an independent engagement for a fixed period of honorarium. The claim for honorarium when the service was not extended has rightly not been entertained. We find no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. Mkr. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J. ) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)