IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7571 of 2009 CHINTA KUMARI, W/O SATYENDRA KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BHUTHA KHAND, P.S. NAGARNAUSA, DISTRICT- NALANDA …….. ……………….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Director, Health Services (Training), Bihar , Patna. 4. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda. 5. Incharge, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Chandi, Nalanda ………… ……… Respondents. ----------- 2. 08.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner was appointed on the post of A.N.M. by Civil Surgeon, Nalanda vide order dated 26.11.1986 contained in Memo No. 2271. Petitioner’s grievance is that her salary has been withheld by the respondent-authorities since April, 2008 on the basis of an order contained in Memo No. 122 dated 11.06.2008. The reason for withholding the payment of petitioner’s salary is that some doubts were raised regarding genuineness of the appointment of the petitioner. To inquire into this matter, Five Men Committee was constituted. Members of the committee were; District Tuberculosis Officer, Nalanda, District Malaria Officer, Nalanda, Additional Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda as well as the Medial Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda and the in-charge, Medical Officer, Nalanda. The meeting of this committee was conducted on 09.08.2008. In this meeting, it was resolved that inquiry relating to the 2 genuineness of appointment of 26 A.N.M. and a male ward attendant is complete. The inquiry committee was of the view that appointment of A.N.Ms. by Civil Surgeon, Nalanda are genuine, and finally, it was resolved that their services can be confirmed and order for payment of salary to these A.N.Ms. can be issued, order directing to withhold salary can be recalled. In the list of 14 A.N.Ms., petitioner’s name is there at serial No. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite finding recorded in favour of the petitioner regarding genuineness of her appointment, payment of salary has not been resumed simply because the order dated 11.06.2008 contained in Memo No. 122 has not been recalled. Counsel appearing for the state submits that in view of the inquiry report, nothing remains to be decided and there is no reason to withhold salary of the petitioner. Accordingly, the order contained in Memo No. 122 dated 11.06.2008 is quashed. The respondents are directed to start payment of current salary to the petitioner forthwith. Arrears of salary with effect from. April, 2008 should also be paid to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of production/receipt of the order. akv/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )