IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14009 of 2008 Tarun Devi, Wife of Sri Bipin Prasad, resident of village Tetari, P.S. Dhanarua, District Patna…………………………………………………………………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary to the Government, Old Secretariate, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, New Secretariate, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Patna. 5. The District Education Officer, Patna. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 7. The Block Development Officer, Dhanarua, District Patna. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Dhanarua, District Patna. 9. The Mukhia Patharhat Gram Panchayat, P.S. Dhanarua, District Patna. 10. The Gram Sewak-cum-Secretary, Panchayat Shiksha Committee, Patharahat Gram Panchayat, P.S. Dhanarua, District Patna. 11. The Member, Panchayat Committee, Patharahat Gram Panchayat, P.S. Dhanarua, District Patna. 12. Rajesh Kumar, son of Name not known, resident of village Bhagwanpur under Patharhat Gram Panchayat, P.S. Dhanarua, District Patna………………………………………………………………………………Respondents ----------- 3 15.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. By order dated 12.03.2004 (Annexure-1) services of the petitioner was not renewed on the ground that earlier she was appointed only because there was no female candidate of most backward class category. Against the said order, 2 petitioner appears to have filed some complaint before some authority, vide Annexure-9 onwards. But the fact remains that petitioner has moved this Court only in 2008 against the said order. Engagement of a Shiksha Mitra was a contractual appointment for 11 months only and subject to renewal of his contract on the basis of satisfactory services. No candidate had right to get his contract renewed. Now after four years, services of the petitioner cannot be renewed as Shiksha Mitra specially when the post does not exist and has been changed as a regular post of Panchayat Teacher. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner for cancellation of the said order of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Patherhat, Dhanrua dated 12.03.2004 as contained in Annexure- 1. The writ application to that extent is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for 11 months petitioner worked but she has not been paid her honorarium. 3 This Court finds that if the petitioner had actually rendered her services on the basis of valid contract, she is entitled for her honorarium. Hence petitioner is directed to file a representation before the Mukhiya/Block Development Officer, Dhanrua for payment of her due remuneration which shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the concerned authorities on the same in accordance with law positively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)