IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.297 of 2004 MANJU KUMARI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr Ratan Pd. Sinha, Advocate. For the Opposite parties : -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---- Dated, the 07th July, 2008. The grievance in this writ petition concerns non- compliance of the order dated 17.05.2000. 2. The order dated 17.05.2000, to the extent it is relevant, reads thus: “The D.S.E., Madhubani will enquire into the matter as to whether salary of the period from 11.1.1993 to 11.3.1993 has actually been paid to the petitioner or not, he may ask the Headmistress of Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Madhepur, Madhubani in this respect. If any document brought on record showing receipt of salary of petitioner, the authorities will verify the genuineness of the same, if necessary, obtaining opinion of the handwriting expert. If forged document is shown to have been kept on record relating to payment, appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against the erring officer, including the Headmistress of the school posted at that time and may initiate a departmental proceeding. On the other hand, if the document is found to be genuine, the petitioner be informed that the payment has already been made to her. If it is found that no payment made for the aforesaid period, the admitted amount, in accordance with law to be paid - 2 - in favour of the petitioner. The authorities concerned will also take decision relating to release of increment and actual dates in respect of the year 1994 onwards. The aforesaid enquiry to be made and appropriate order to be passed within a period within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 3. In response to the notice, show cause has been shown by the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said show cause read thus: “4. That it is submitted that after preparation Bank draft of Rs.4747/- against the salary for the period of maternity leave, deponent requested the petitioner to receive the said Bank draft but she refused to receive the said Bank Draft which will be clear from the perusal of report submitted by the Head master dated 20.03.2005 and 15.04.2005. The said Bank draft shall be handed over to the counsel for the petitioner if the Hon‟ble court will permit. A photo copy of the Bank draft dated 14.03.2005 and report dated 20.03.2005 and 15.04.2005 are being annexed herewith and marked as Annexures-A, B and B/1 to this counter show cause. 5. That it is also submitted that with regard to the actual date of increment deponent passed an order and refixed the date of increment as 13.02.1994 and deposited the (arrears of increment) amount of Rs.3390/- in the account of petitioner (S.B.I Jhanjharpur) on 22.7.2005. Photo copy of the order dated 28.03.2005 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C to this show cause. 6. That with regard to the enquiry as per direction of this Hon‟ble Court deponent has set up an enquiry committee of three members and directed to submit the report within one month along with evidence after making spot verification.” - 3 - 4. It would be, thus, seen that with regard to the salary for a period of maternity leave, a cash order (Bank Draft of Punjab National Bank) was obtained way back on 14.03.2005. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the said cash order has not been received as it was in the wrong name and sent at a wrong address. 5. If some error crept in the address or in the name of the petitioner, it would have been better had the petitioner gone to the concerned authority for re-validation of the cash order. The Xerox copy of the cash order has been placed on record and we find that „Manju Devi ( Asstt. Teacher)” has been described therein, while the petitioner‟s name is „Manju Kumari‟. There is no lack of bonafide on the part of the respondents in getting the cash order. 6. Be that as it may, we now direct the petitioner to contact the concerned authority for re-issuance of the cash order (Bank Draft) after re-validation and necessary correction in the name. We further observe that the concerned authority shall take steps in re- validating the cash order and getting the name of the petitioner corrected in the cash order, if necessary, and ensure that the payment is made to the petitioner against the salary for the period of maternity leave now without delay. 7. As regards the inaction on the part of the authorities in initiating disciplinary proceeding against the erring Head Mistress, it appears from the available material that the order for initiation of - 4 - disciplinary proceeding against the concerned Head Mistress has already been issued. Obviously, the initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the concerned Head Mistress shall be taken to logical conclusion. Since it does not relate to the petitioner, she should not unnecessarily be anxious about that. With the aforesaid observations, the MJC stands disposed of. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil