IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.131 of 2006 BEMALENDU KUMAR, S/o Late Brahmdeo Prasad Yadav, R/o Village-+ P.O.-Jamunia, P.S.-Shahu Prabata, District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur. 4. The Block Development Officer, Naugachhia, District- Bhagalpur. 5. The Mukhia, Jamunia, Gram Panchayat, Block Naugachhia, District- Bhagalpur. 6. The Headmaster, Middle School, Janunia, Block-Naugachhia, Bhagalpur. ----------- 6. 06-08-2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 19-06-2006, by which a Bench of this Court disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 1561 of 2005 giving direction to the petitioner to represent his case before the Collector of the District for payment of his due remuneration which would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation and in case the Collector is satisfied that due remuneration has not been paid to the petitioner, he will direct for payment of the same forthwith. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first paragraph of his writ petition as well as in the prayer portion thereof, he sought two reliefs namely (i) for the payment of remuneration at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month as well as (ii) for directing the respondents to re-engage the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra from March, 2003 to February, 2004 during which period the petitioner worked as Shiksha Mitra in Middle School Jamunia under Naugachia Anchal of - 2 - Bhagalpur District, giving all consequential benefits after allowing him to fill up the form as required for Shiksha Mitra. But by the order under review only the first relief was considered whereas the second relief sought by the petitioner was completely ignored and hence the said order is fit to be rejected. 4. From the writ petition it appears that the petitioner had sought two reliefs but from bare perusal of the order under review it is quite apparent that at the time of raising his arguments only the first point was pressed whereas the second point was nowhere shown to have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the Court was quite justified in deciding the issue raised by the petitioner at the time of arguments. 5. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the said order nor does it find any material to take a different view. Accordingly, this review petition is disposed of. 6. However, since the second relief with regard to re-engagement of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra had not been raised by the petitioner and had also not been considered by this court, the petitioner will be entitled to raise said point seeking appropriate relief before any appropriate authority, who shall consider the same and decide it. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J)