IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10794 of 2007 Urmila Devi, W/o Ram Narain Singh, resident of village + Post Pani Kamla, P.S. Amdabad, District Katihar … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa 3. Regional Deputy Director of Education Koshi Division Saharsa 4. District Magistrate, Saharsa 5. Deputy Development Commission, Saharsa 6. Director Primary Education, New Secretariat, Patna 7. Headmaster, Girls Middle School, Panchgachia, Saharsa … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 21.10.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. As with regard to the grievance of the petitioner with regard to non-payment of her salary for the period of 19 months and bonus as explained in Paragraphs No. 6, 7 and 8 the respondents have given their explanation in paragraphs No. 16, 17 and 18 as well as 24 and 25 of the counter affidavit. The respondents in fact have denied the claim for payment of salary of the petitioner by explaining that: “ That now so far the matter of payment of salary, the facts as communicated by the D.D.O. vide his memo no.20 dated 13.9.2007 (Annexure B) is to be relied upon which are as follows: i Arrear pay Sept. 2004 to 15 Oct. 2004 Not paid due to absent from the school without information. ii March,2005 to May, 2006 Not paid due to absentee statement not countersigned by the Secretary of Vidyalay Shiksha Samittee. iii August, 2005 to September, 2005 For the same reason as stated in column (ii) above and because of suspension w.e.f. 29.5.2005. iv October, 2005 to July, 2006 She remained under suspension w.e.f. 29.8.2005 to till 27.6.2006 till date of revocation of suspension. v March, 2007 to April, 2007 In this connection for non-payment it is stated that the absentee statement was not submitted by the 2 petitioner as such payment withheld by the D.D.O. of the institution. vi Bonus for 1997- 1998 She has been paid bonus for the period amounting to Rs. 2419/-. The respondents, however, admitted the claim of payment of bonus of the petitioner and in fact it is said that the bonus of Rs. 2419/- was already paid to her. So far decision for claiming increment is concerned, the respondents have partly explained it by taking a plea that the departmental proceeding is still pending against the petitioner. Additionally, learned counsel for the State would submit that there is an outstanding sum of Rs. 1,65,007/- on account of such advances taken by her in relation to certain schemes which were performed and completed by her. In view of the fact that the part of salary of the petitioner stands withheld on account of order of suspension in a pending departmental proceeding, this Court would make it clear that the final decision with regard to payment of salary for the period of suspension would be taken immediately after the departmental proceeding is concluded. Such departmental proceeding in fact being of the year 2006, if not concluded by now, must be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. At the same time it will be also open for the petitioner to produce evidence in support of the fact of her working for the period in question, apart from the period of suspension, that she was actually worked in the said period and yet was denied payment of salary. If the petitioner, therefore, would 3 file her representation enclosing the proof of her working for the period in question for which she has claimed payment of salary in this writ application, the District Education Establishment Committee being the competent body will pass its final order as with regard to payment of salary of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of its receipt. While this Court would not like to say anything with regard to alleged liability of the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 1,65,007/- but then this much is observed that it will be always open for the respondents to recover the said amount in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/