IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3201 of 2010 PREMA KUMARI W/O SRI HRISHIKESH KUMAR SINHA R/O VILL.- DIGHI KALA, P.S. HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN, CHAPRA 3. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL APPELLATE THROUGH ITS MEMBER AUTHORITY, SARAN, CHAPRA 4. THE MUKHIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT MUJAUNA, BLOCK DARIAPUR, DISTT.- SARAN 5. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT MUJAUNA, BLOCK DARIAPUR, DISTT.- SARAN. ----------- 04 23.09.2010 The petitioner is a Panchayat teacher. She has come to this Court against her dismissal as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Respondent no.4 to this proceeding is the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel appearing for the Mukhiya takes a very fair stand and submits that order of dismissal and, consequently, the appellate order must be set aside as they suffers from many legal infirmities, but at the same time the Panchayat may be given liberty to proceed in the matter. This Court while issuing notice had stayed the impugned orders. The consequence thereof was that petitioner became entitled to rejoin. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the order of termination of service is set aside, she would be entitled not only to her earlier wages, which are in arrears, she would also be entitled to wages since the time she was wrongly dismissed. Mr. Mangalam, learned counsel for the Mukhiya has some reservation in the matter as the funds have to come from the State - 2 - Government. Having heard the both the contesting parties, in my view, the order of termination cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. One of the reasons as that all the notices are shown to have been sent under certificate of posting, there is serious dispute whether, in fact, the order was passed when it is said to have been passed. These are only view of the things and realizing the position Mr. Mangalam rightly concedes that the order of dismissal be set aside. It is, accordingly, set aside. So far as payment of remuneration is concerned, for the period for which the petitioner has worked, respondent no.4 would ensure that payment is made within one month. So far as the period after wrongful dismissal is concerned, in my view, as the dismissal is held to be wrongful and so conceded by respondent no.4 as well, the petitioner would be entitled to full wages till the time she was reinstated. There is a controversy as to how the difficulty petitioner getting succeeded in reinstatement in spite of order of stay of this Court. Be that as it may, it would be the responsibility of the Gram Panchayat concerned to ensure full compliance of orders of this Court. At the same time, the Gram Panchayat concerned would have liberty to initiate any fresh proceedings as he may be advised in accordance with law. It is expected that the proceedings would be genuinely and bona fidely started and all parties would cooperate. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)