IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14604 of 2009 1. SMT. ABITA KUMARI W/O PREM KUMAR JHA R/O VILL.- GORAUL, P.O.- GORAUL, P.S.- GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPTT. OF SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR NEW SECRETARIATE BIHAR PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPTT. OF PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER VAISHALI 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION VAISHALI 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER RAGHOPUR BLOCK, DISTT.- VAISHALI 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER RAGHOPUR BLOCK, DISTT.- VAISHALI 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAGHOPUR EAST, BLOCK- RAGHOPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 10. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAGHOPUR EAST, BLOCK- RAGHOPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar For the State :- Mr. A. N. Sinha, G.P. XI ------- 3 13/01/2011 In view of certain development and adjudication having been made by the High Court, petitioner does not press for a direction upon the respondents for any other relief or remedy except for payment of salary for the period she had worked on the post of Panchayat teacher - 2 - i.e. from the month of April, 2008 till her removal. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that even if it is held or found that her appointment was illegal because the petitioner did not have valid educational qualification to be appointed as such, the petitioner is surely entitled for payment of salary for the period in question if she has worked. In this regard attention of this Court has been drawn to paragraph 5 of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Gautam Kumar Chaudhary Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 2009(1) PLJR, 589 which is quoted here-in- below:- “As regards the grievance of the appellant that he has not been paid any salary for the period he worked, suffice it to observe that merely because his appointment was found bad in law at a later point of time and that resulted in cancellation of appointment, the appellant cannot be denied his salary for the period he worked.” In view of the above decision, this writ application is disposed of with a direction upon respondent no. 9, the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raghopur Block, District Vaishali as well as - 3 - respondent no. 10, the Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raghopur East, Block Raghopur, District Vaishali to pay salary to the petitioner for the period she had worked as a Panchayat teacher till her removal as such. This writ application stands allowed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)