IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12591 of 2010 1. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O SRI BINDESHWAR MAHTO R/O VILL. AND P.O. SINGHIA KHURD, P.S. AND DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR----PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, POKHRAURA, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, POKHRAURA, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR----------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 6.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-9 is the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority. The order is dated 5.5.2010 which is sought to be challenged in the present writ application. Petitioner approached the said tribunal for a direction upon respondent to pay him his salary since he was working on the post after his appointment by the Panchayat but for unknown reason his salary is not being paid. Matter was examined by the tribunal by hearing all the parties necessary for adjudication of the dispute and tribunal came to a considered opinion that there may not be an occasion to give any direction for payment of salary to the petitioner because of the manner in which his appointment came about. It is not disputed that earlier appointments made in the said Panchayat became a subject matter of scrutiny by higher ups and steps have been taken for cancellation of those appointments and direction was issued for fresh appointment. It is this direction based on which the petitioner came to occupy the - 2 - post but the tribunal has categorically held that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the direction issued in this regard and he came to be accommodated at the cost of some other claimant who not only had higher marks but also had a place in the wait list above the petitioner. In this background the case of the petitioner was dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order in so far as the validity of appointment of the petitioner to the post is concerned. But since petitioner has made out a case for direction for payment of his salary in view of the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gautam Kumar Choudhary vrs. The State of Bihar & others reported in 2009 (1) PLJR 589, there is a case for issuance of a direction in favour of the petitioner. The Division Bench has categorically held that merely because an appointment was found to be bad at a later point of time which may have resulted in cancellation of the appointment but that cannot be a basis for denial of the salary for the period the person has worked. Paragraph-5 of the said decision is the authority on this point. This writ application is allowed to the extent that a direction is hereby issued both to the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary of the concerned Panchayat that for the period the petitioner had worked wages will have to be worked out for - 3 - payment of his salary which may be done within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)