IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3627 of 2007 PRATIBHA KUMARI, Wife of Kamlesh Prasad, resident of village – Hanumanbagh, Goshala Road, Rajnagar, P.S. Rajnagar, District – Madhubani. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 4. District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani. 5. Block Development Officer, Rajnagar, Madhubani. 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Mangraun, West Madhubani. …. Respondents. ----------- 02/ 14.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Siksha Mitra, pursuant to which she joined on 28.5.2005. Thereafter she was sent for training on 30.5.2005 and after completing the same she came back on 28.6.2005. From that date she worked as Siksha Mitra till 23.9.2005 and from the next date i.e. 24.9.2005 she proceeded on maternity leave and when she came back she was not allowed to join. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed representations before District Superintendent of Education and Block Development Officer, copies whereof are annexure-9 series. Pursuant to the representation, the Block Development Officer has directed Mukhiya of the concerned Gram - 2 - Panchayat to produce all the papers relating to appointment of the petitioner, but nothing further has been done in the matter. He submits that this writ application may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 5 namely, Block Development Officer to pass final orders on the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Block Development Officer, Rajnagar, Madhubani for passing final orders on the pending representation of the petitioner which has been entertained by him as is evident from Annexure – 10, a memo no. 1732 dated 18.12.2006 issued by him. Respondent no. 5 shall finally decide the matter with regard to the claim of the petitioner, at least for her arrears of salary for the period in which she actually worked, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case respondent no.5 does find merit in the claim of the petitioner he will ensure that consequential orders are passed within that period itself by the person concerned. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim of the - 3 - petitioner which has to be considered by respondent no. 5 strictly in accordance with law. DKS/ (J. N. Singh, J.)