IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5401 of 2010 1. RAM CHANDRA SINGH S/O SRI BAIKUNTH SINGH R/O VILL.- KARIGANW (PUSAULI), P.O.- BHITTI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTT.- KAIMUR AT BHABUA 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, DISTT.- KAIMUR AT BHABUA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR AT BHABUA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR AT BHABUA 6. SMT. ANJU DEVI SARPANCH, BAGHINI GRAM KACHAHARI, R/O VILL.- DASAUTI, P.O.- BHAGHINI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR AT BHABUA ----------- 3. 23.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Nyaya Mitra. It is his assertion that he joined after issuance of the appointment letter. It is further asserted that though he had completed the training, the State Government itself was not in the State of preparedness to utilize the services of Nyaya Mitra and therefore he continued to sit idle and had not been paid his honorarium. Counsel for the State points out from the counter affidavit filed by the Block Development Officer that the petitioner after joining never reported for work. This Court is satisfied that the writ petition is 2 raising disputed questions of facts. The submission urged in Court on behalf of the petitioner does not find reference in any of his representations. Undoubtedly, his representations do suggest that he was claiming to be working but was being denied honorarium. The Bihar Gram Katchahry Nyaya Mitra (Employment, Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007 vests power under Rule 11 in the Sarpanch and in his absence, the Deputy Sarpanch to take disciplinary action against a Nyaya Mitra. The final decision then rests in the concerned committee constituted under Rule 6(6) of the Rules. The counter affidavit of the Block Development Officer while making reference to details sought from the Sarpanch and the Deputy Sarpanch does not make any statement that any disciplinary action under Rule 11 had been initiated against the petitioner. Rule 12 of the rules vests power in the Block Development Officer to hear grievances with regard to matters related to appointment of Nyaya Mitra. This Court has no hesitation in holding that matters related to appointment shall take within its ambit a claim for honorarium as that claim arises in pursuance of an appointment and is directly related to the issue of the appointment. Since the counter affidavit has been filed 3 by the Block Development Officer, this Court considers it proper to direct the District Magistrate who is the appellate authority under Rule 13 to examine the grievances of the petitioner. Liberty is given to file an additional representation before the District Magistrate, if so advised, within a period of 30 days from today. Let the District Magistrate then pass a reasoned and speaking order on the claims for honorarium for any specified period made by the petitioner and dispose it off by a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date that such representation is filed before him along with a copy of the present order. It is expected that if the District Magistrate finds justification in the claim, or in any part of the claim, necessary consequential orders with respect to the same shall be passed within the same period. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)