IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13814 of 2010 1. PUNAM KUMARI JHA D/O SRI HARISCHANDRA JHA, W/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR JHA R/O MOH SHASTRINAGAR, P.O.SHASTRINAGAR, DISTT-PATNA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, BIRAUL, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ-CHIKINA, GHOGHARDIHA, DISTT-MADHUBANI------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH & TRAINING, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION MADHUBANI 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GHOGHARDIHA, MADHUBANI 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER GHOGHARDIHA, MADHUBANI 7. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHIKNA, BLOCK- GHOGHARDIHA, DISTT-MADHUBANI 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHIKNA, BLOCK-GHOGHARDIHA, DISTT-MADHUBANI 9. THE HEAD MASTER, PRIMARY SCHOOL BIRAUL, GHOGHARDIHA, DISTT-MADHUBANI--------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 15.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is supposed to be a Panchayat teacher working in Biraul Gram Panchayat Raj- Chikina Ghoghardiha District-Madhubani. She has been compelled to approach the High Court for grant of medical leave for the period she has already submitted medical certificate as well as for payment of salary to her which has not been granted by the concerned Head Master of the Primary School in question. According to submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, 2008 Rule notified by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar does provide for grant of various kinds of leave and relevant clause in this regard is Rule 15. Rule 15 (1) talks in terms of 16 days casual leave in a year and 20 days of medical leave on the basis of medical certificate to be produced in this regard. - 2 - Submission therefore of the counsel is that she had informed the Principal about her illness from time to time along with supporting medical evidence but it is inaction or negligence on the part of the authority which has compelled her to come to the High Court. The Court fails to understand as to why even a routine kind of administrative decision cannot be taken at the level of the authority concerned, in this case the Head Master and citizens are compelled or harassed even when all details and evidence are furnished to the authority where a decision ought to be taken as a routine. The Court feels that either it is being done on purpose to harass the people or it is a case of incompetence on the part of the person concerned, who is incapable to take decision, which is not very complicated in nature, which is evident from the assertion and evidence available on record. Since the majority of these teachers are relatively new incumbent and inexperienced, the High Court takes a lenient view and gives benefit of doubt to the Head Master of the Primary School in question. If such kind of litigation arises in future the High Court will surely come down with very heavy hand. This writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the Head Master i.e. respondent no.9 that he must take cognizance of the application for grant of medical leave of the kind and a decision would be taken and communicated to the petitioner within 15 days of the production of a copy of this order - 3 - by the petitioner. So far as non payment of salary is concerned, if it is linked to the grant or sanction of leave then that aspect shall also be sorted out or else the Court fails to understand as to why the petitioner would not be paid salary if she has been working and performing her duty in the school in question. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction for strict compliance. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)