IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3242 of 2008 BIRENDRA KUMAR THAKUR, S/O SRI RAM NARAYAN THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE-SUKKI MUSHARNIYA, P.S.- PARIHAR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA, BIHAR. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, PATNA, BIHAR. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SITAMARHI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK PARIHAR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK PARIHAR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 14.07.2011 On the basis of appointment letter dated 15.05.2005, as contained in Annexure-2, petitioner claims that he was appointed as Siksha Mitra. However, he subsequently continued and was converted into Panchayat Teacher after new Rules came into force. He claims that, he has continued as Panchayat Teacher since then. However, his grievance is that he has not been paid his honorarium in spite of he being still in service. Learned counsel for the respondents raises doubt about the validity of initial appointment of the petitioner and his continuance. In the circumstances, it will be 2 appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority which will be in a better position to call for the original records and examine as to whether the petitioner has really continued in service and then pass appropriate orders. The writ application is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority within four weeks from today. If he does so, the Appellate Authority shall call for the original records with regard to appointment of the petitioner and with regard to his continuance in the concerned School, shall issue notice to the concerned parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders on merits, preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the payment of salary of the petitioner is a matter connected with his alleged employment and, therefore, the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)