IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10332 of 2009 HARE RAM RAI, S/O LATE BIKARMA RAI, R/O VILLAGE-NARHI, P.S.-SAHAR, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR AT ARA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHOJPUR AT ARA. 5. THE S.D.O., JAGDISHPUR, BHOJPUR. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JAGDISHPUR, BHOJPUR. 7. THE MUKHIYA, SIARUAN PANCHAYAT, BLOCK- JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. 8. THE PANCHAYAT SEVAK, SIARUAN PANCHAYAT, BLOCK-JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 03.11.2010 Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents particularly respondent nos.7 and 8 for payment of his salary for the period he had actually worked as Panchayat Teacher. The contention of the petitioner is that under the orders of the competent authorities he was appointed as Panchayat Teacher on 16.12.2006. Pursuant to which he joined on 19.12.2006. He was paid salary till April 2007 and thereafter his salary was stopped by the respondent nos.7 and 8. The petitioner complained before the B.D.O. with regard to non-payment of his salary and 2 B.D.O. vide Annexure-4 directed the respondent nos.7 and 8 i.e. Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary for release of salary of the petitioner. Inspite of the same, the salary was not released. Thereafter, by Annexure-5 dated 1.7.2009, the DSE has also issued directions to the respondent nos.7 and 8 to release salary of the petitioner. This was also not complied with by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner has moved this Court. Notices were issued to the respondent nos.7 and 8 in this writ application and they have appeared. The Mukhiya has filed counter affidavit in which he has raised some dispute with regard to the validity of appointment of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent nos. 7 and 8 pointed out to the higher authorities that the petitioner was not validly appointed. However, by filing a rejoinder to the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the matter was enquired into by the higher authorities and thereafter direction for payment of salary of the period he had 3 actually worked was again issued, vide Annexure-7 dated 24.9.2009. It is also pointed out that on account of disobedience of the orders of the higher authorities charges have been framed against the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretyary and action has been initiated. Learned counsel appearing for the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary submits that the Mukhiya has already filed reply to the charges framed against him on 10.10.2009. He submits that the matter is still pending and no final orders have been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner has been selected for some other post and, therefore he has resigned from the post of Panchayat Teacher on 16.10.2010. Therefore, he does not insist for continuing on the post and his grievance is only in respect of payment of his salary. It appears from the records that the complaints of the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary were examined by the higher authorities and payment of salary of the petitioner was reiterated by them. 4 In that view of the mater, the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary are not legally entitled to stop the salary of the petitioner. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. The Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary are directed to release the salary of the petitioner of the period he has actually worked in terms of the orders passed by the higher authorities. The payments must be released to the petitioner by the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)