Saroj Razak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1989 of 2020 ====================================================== 1.

Saroj Razak daughter of Sri Daroga Baitha, Resident of village Basmaanpur Agarwa. Post Pataura, Police Station- Mofussil Motihari, District- East Champara.

2.

Sanjeev Kumar Razak, son of Sri Daroga Baitha, Resident of village Basmaanpur Agarwa. Post Pataura, Police Station- Mofussil Motihari, District- East Champaran.

3.

Dharmnath Razak, son of Ramakant Baitha, Resident of village Bela Baiju, Post Bela Baiju, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 4.

The District Education Officer, Motihari, East Champaran. 5.

The District Programme Officer, Literacy, Motihari, East Champaran. 6.

The Block Education Officer, Motihari Sadar Block, East Champaran. 7.

The Block Education Officer, Patahi Block, East Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Kameshwar Kumar (Gp17) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-02-2020 Heard both sides.

The sole grievance of the petitioners is that they were appointed on the post of Tola Sewak and they worked from February, 2015 to April, 2016 and the services of the petitioners were terminated vide memo No. 141 dated 22.04.2016 but the salary has not been paid to them for the period they worked. It is submitted that similarly situated some persons

Patna High Court CWJC No.1989 of 2020(2) dt.04-02-2020 2/2 filed CWJC No. 7716 of 2016 and CWJC No. 9454 of 2016 and a coordinate bench of this court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the authority to consider the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary for the period they actually worked within 60 days.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of salary for the period they actually worked and pass order within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U