IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.429 of 2010 1. SMT. MANJU DEVI W/O KAPILDEO PANDEY R/O VILL.- DADHIYA ASADHAR, P.S.- ANGARGHAT, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR, PRESENTLY MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DADHIYA MURIYARO, BLOCK- UJIARPUR, P.S.- ANGARGHAT, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 2. RAM BILAS MAHTO S/O LATE SITARAM MAHTO R/O VILLAGE + P.O. SINGHIAGHAT TOLA BIRSAHIA, P.S.- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PANCHAYAT SACHIV, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DADHIYA MURIYARO, BLOCK- UJIARPUR, P.S.- ANGARGHAT, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 3. THE COLLECTOR SAMASTIPUR 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SAMASTIPUR 5. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF ANGARGHAT POLICE STATION DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 6. SMT. RAGINI KUMARI W/O SRI NAVIN KUMAR PANDEY R/O VILL.- BHUSARI, P.O.- CHATAUNA, VIA JITWARPUR, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 7. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SAMASTIPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 07/03/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of respondent No.6 despite valid service of notice. The earlier order of the Court dated 13.1.2010 adequately notices the facts that the respondent No.6 was employed as a Panchayat Sikshak. The relationship was of an employer and employee and that she did not stand in the position of a consumer. The panchayat employing her was not a service provider insofar as she was concerned as the engagement was on specified payment of salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Respondent No.6 had a specific remedy in the Bihar Panchayat Primary Education (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 before the Block Development Officer if she was aggrieved by non- 2 payment of salary or before the Appellate Tribunal constituted in respect thereof in 2008. Learned counsel for the State finds it difficult to convince the Court that in an employer and employee relationship the Respondent No.6 stood in the status of a consumer with regard to claims for salary under the conditions of engagement. The entire proceedings in Case No.108/09 under the Consumer Protection Act pending before the District Consumer Forum, Samastipur are therefore required held to be without jurisdiction. Entire proceedings are hereby quashed. As a result, all orders and direction passed therein are held to be a nullity. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)