IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.93 of 2011 Parmeshwar Paswan S/o Late Bahura Paswan, R/o village – Sugauna North, P.S. Raj Nagar, District-Madhubani …………..Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Madhubani 2. District Superintendent of Eduction-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Bihar Education Project, Madhubani 3. The Block Development Officer, Bisfi, District-Madhubani 4. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Aunsi Babhangama South, Anchal Bisfi, District-Madhbani 5. Renu Chakravarty, daughter of Mahendra Yadav, wife of Surendra Yadav, resident of vill-Schrai, Police Station- Pandaul, District-Madhubani. ] …………. Respondents ----------- 4 30-6-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. The appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of his review petition bearing Civil Review No. 41 of 2010 by the order under appeal dated 10-12-2010. Our attention was drawn to the order dated 8-12-2009, and particularly last paragraph of that order with a view to persuade us that at least the direction in the last paragraph against the appellant, who is the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Raj, Aunsi Babhangama South, Block –Bisfi, Madhubani, be deleted. A perusal of the order noted above, which the appellant wants to be reviewed, shows that the writ court came to a conclusion that the writ petitioner, a Panchayat 2 teacher, was not being paid arrears of her salary as well as current salary inspite of orders to that effect by the Block Development Officer and higher authorities. It was further found that the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat as well as the District Superintendent of Education and the District Education Officer attributed non-payment of salary to the petitioner to the arbitrary behaviour of the Panchayat Secretary, who was allegedly disobeying the directions of the superior authorities. In that view of the matter, while disposing of the writ petition, a direction was given to the District Magistrate, Madhubani, to take immediate action against the Panchayat Secretary. An effort was made on behalf of the appellant to persuade us that the writ court should have held that the writ petitioner was not entitled to any salary. We do not appreciate such a stand of the Panchayat Secretary, who has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the appointment of the Panchayat teacher. The other submission of the appellant is that the direction for taking action against the Panchayat Secretary was without affording any opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his action. There may appear some substance in this 3 submission, but on a closer scrutiny the submission has no merit, because there is no direction for any particular action against the Panchayat Secretary in violation of rules of audi alterem partem . It is clarified that the direction to take action against the Panchayat Secretary should be read as a direction to initiate action and take a decision in accordance with law after observing the rules of natural justice. It is further made clear that the observations of the writ court or this Court shall not prejudice the appellant in his defence in any proceeding against him. The appeal is disposed of. roy (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( V. Nath, J.)