IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.747 of 2009 MAHENDRA SINGH SUMAN, Son of Sri Rajdeo Singh, resident of village- Hasanpur, P.O. Baraini, P.S. Belaganj, District-Gaya. …Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya. 4. The B.D.O., Belaganj, Gaya. 5. The Panchayat Sachiv, Shreepur, P.S. Belaganj, District- Gaya. 6. The Mukhiya, Shreepur, Belaganj, Dist. – Gaya. ….Respondents/Respondents ----------- 2/ 14.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that this appeal is confined only to claim of salary from March, 2006 to 18.5.2007 and not against the order of termination dated 24.4.2007, whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Shiksha Mitra. It has further been submitted that 4th renewal to the status of Panchayat Shikchak after March, 2006, could not materialize because of the model code of conduct applicable during the Panchayat Election and such cases have to be treated as cases of valid extension of service in view of the policy decision of the State Government dated 8th August, 2006, contained in Annexure-7 to this L.P.A. It has further been submitted that in similar circumstances writ petition filed by one Devendra Nath Sharma was disposed of by the writ court on 4.5.2009, vide Annexure-6, directing the concerned respondent to examine the grievance of the petitioner in respect of the claims for arrears of salary in the light of the observation that if that petitioner had served for certain period and actually discharged duties, he may be entitled for salary for the said period prior to the order of termination. - 2 - In the facts of the case and keeping in view of the aforesaid submission, this appeal is disposed with direction to the respondent no.4, the B.D.O., Belaganj, Gaya, to consider the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary if his case is governed by the policy decision of the State Government, Department of Human Resources dated 8th August, 2006, and if he has actually discharged duties for the period in question. The final decision on such a claim should be taken expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner. The appeal is disposed of. JA/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Anjana Prakash, J.)