IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6532 of 2008 Anil Kumar Rajbanshi, son of Late Gago Rajbanshi, resident of village Reganiya Tar, P.S. Fatehpur, District- Gaya. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The District Magistrate, Gaya 3.The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya 4.The Officer on Special Duty the Bihar Education Project, District- Gaya 5.The District Education Officer, Gaya 6.The Block Development Officer, Fatehpur, District- Gaya 7.The Block Education Officer, Fatehpur, District- Gaya 8.The Area Education Officer, Fatehpur, District- Gaya 9.The Panchayat Secretary, Naudiha Sultanpur Gram Panchayat Block Fatehpur, District- Gaya 10.The Mukhiya Naudiha Sultanpur Gram Panchayat Block Fatehpur, District- Gaya. ……………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 4. 11/08/2011 Admittedly, third term of petitioner as Shiksha Mitra expired in March, 2006. Still, he claims to have continued as Shiksha Mitra and to have become Panchayat Teacher after 1.7.2006. On the basis of such continuance, petitioner filed this writ application for payment of salary. Respondent no.5 the District Education Officer, Gaya has filed counter affidavit in the case. It is stated in the counter affidavit that now the authorities have discovered that even petitioner’s second extension was illegal and he has illegally 2 continued as Shiksha Mitra and thereafter as Panchayat Teacher. It is stated that they have taken action in the matter by issuing notice to the Panchayat Secretary and recommending Administrative Departments for appropriate action. Appropriate action in the matter is the concern of the respondents. It is only made clear that any action in the matter must comply with the Principles of Natural Justice. So far as claim of the petitioner for salary of the subsequent period is concerned, this Court does not find that the petitioner has continued on the post legally. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed at this stage. However, if, at any subsequent stage, petitioner is able to satisfy the authorities that he was validly given extension and has validly continued, it goes without saying that he will be entitled for salary of the period as due to him. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)