IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12317 of 2002 Chandra Bhushan Das, Son of late Satya Narain Lal Das, Resident of Village Betauna, P.S. Raniganj, Post Gidbaru, District Araria, at present posted as Headmaster of Kanik Prathmik-Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya at Pratapganj, P.S. Pratapganj, District Supaul. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Special Director, Secondary Education (Incharge Sanskrit) Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, East Boring Canal Road, Patna. 5. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, through its Secretary, East Boaring Canal Road, Patna. 6. The District Education Officer, Supaul. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 28.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board as also counsel for the State of Bihar. The prayer of the writ petitioner reads as follows:- 1(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.6 to make payment of due arrear D.A. from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990 and part salary from 1998 to 2001 and the current salary with D.A. to the teaching and non teaching staffs of the petitioners School which is one of the non-Govt, 2 recognized aided genuine Sanskrit School of 223 Group.” Mr. Purushottam Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the aforementioned prayer would submit that as a matter of fact there are following unpaid amount of the petitioner, which have been paid to him till date, namely:- 1. Arrear of D.A. for the year 1989-90 Rs. 36,108=00 2. Arrear part salary for the year 98-90 Rs. 50,119=00 3. ” ” ” 2000-01 Rs. 51,546=00 4. ” ” ” 2001-02 Rs. 72,766=00 5. Full Salary 2001-02 Rs. 1,46,928=00 6. ” ” ” 2002-03 Rs. 98,792=00 Total Rs. 4, 56,259=00 Mr. Jha would further submit that the appointment of the petitioner was made in a prescribed manner and it was also approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. He would also refer to the Government order of approval with regard to the school of the petitioner by taking a plea that it is one of the 223 recognized Sanskrit Schools whose liability for payment of salary by way of full grant-in-aid has already been accepted by the State Government. Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board in absence of a counter affidavit would only 3 submit that now the role of the Board has been very much limited, inasmuch as, the State Government is releasing fund directly to the District Education Officer and therefore, any direction for payment of salary can be given only to the concerned District Education Officer, Supaul. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand would take a plea that the order of payment of salary by the District Education Officer is only confined to such teacher of recognized Sanskrit school where appointment has already been upheld and/or approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and that too on the fixed norms by the Government. In the opinion of this Court, when the Government is already making payment of salary even by way of full grant-in-aid to the school of the petitioner and the petitioner has been also for the same time paid such amount, it would augur well for the institution itself that such uncertainty with regard to the payment of salary of the approved teaching employee including that of 4 the petitioner is not allowed to continue for an indefinite period. The payment of salary is of-course dependant on the working of a person and therefore, if there be proof of working of the petitioner, the competent authority of the Board upon its examination will pass necessary order as with regard to the aforementioned claim in paragraph no.5 of the writ petition. If upon completion of such exercise, the authorities of the Board would make a recommendation for such payment, the District Education Officer, Supaul, subject to the confirmation from the records that such payment of the petitioner is not only as per the Government policy and rules but also was earlier not paid to the petitioner, would take a decision for its payment. The final decision with regard to the payment of salary as is claimed in the writ application would therefore lie within the norms fixed by the State Government but then such decision must be taken as early as possible preferably within a period of six months. It is, however, made clear that this 5 Court has not expressed any opinion on the claim of the petitioner, which has to be decided by the competent authority i.e. the Board and the D.E.O., Supaul strictly in accordance with law but only in the aforesaid time limit. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)