IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2236 of 2010 1. BHAWESH KUMAR, Son of Jagdish Prasad Yadav, resident of Village-Koluha, Police Station-Shankarpur, District-Madhepura. 2. Indra Bhushan Kumar, son of Narayan Prasad Yadav resident of village-Koluha, Police Station-Shankarpur, District-Madhepura. ---------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa. 4. The District Magistrate, Supaul. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Supaul. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul. 7. The Block Development Officer, Kishanpur, District- Supaul. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kishanpur, District-Supaul. ----------------Respondents. ----------------- 2. 29.10.2010 The two petitioners claim to be Panhayat Shikshak in Primary School at Navtol, District-Supaul has filed this writ application for payment of their salary and other emoluments under similar circumstances. Some other Panchyat Teachers have come to this Court as directed in C.W.J.C. No. 7954 of 2009 which was disposed of on 14.07.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that similar direction may be issued in their case as well as they are identical. Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioners’ services have been terminated. Petitioners 2 states that the report on which the State realize (Annexure-3) is different so that the petitioners were found working and petitioners had in fact not been terminated. Be that as it may, in my view as under similar circumstances directions have already been issued by this Court and similar directions are directed to be issued. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I disposed of the present writ application with a direction to the petitioners to file a representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Supaul for payment of his salary and other emoluments if it is found that the petitioner is still working and has not been dismissed, the District Superintendent of Education would ensure payment of salary to the petitioners and even if it is found that the petitioners were dismissed then at least for the period for which the petitioners had worked they will be entitled to their full salary upon representation being filed and the same would be disposed of within two weeks peremptory. With the above observations, the writ application is disposed of. Anand Kr. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)