IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1367 of 2006 Km. Usha Kalura ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and another …Respondents. Sri Sanjay Raturi, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard Sri Sanjay Raturi, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner claims to be a “Siksha Mitra” working in a primary school. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been paid the honorarium which is liable to be given to her since 2004 onwards. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been contended that the honorarium is not being given to the petitioner because she has remained absent. This fact is, however, controverted by the petitioner. Since the adjudication of the present dispute would require an appreciation of disputed question of fact, it is befitting that the matter be sent to the Additional District Education Officer (Basic) Tehri, District Garhwal i.e. respondent no. 2 who shall conduct an enquiry into the matter at his level and thereafter pass an order pertaining to the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. In case the Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has worked as “Siksha Mitra” and has put in appearance as she claims, then she 2 is liable to get the salary. The directions of this Court shall be complied with by respondent no. 2 within a period of 8 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 10.3.2011 Avneet