Sweta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5038 of 2018 ====================================================== Sweta Kumari, Daughter of Balram Rai, Wife of Sunil Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village- Manjhigai, P.O.- Rupsa, Police Station- Rajaun, DistrictBanka ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.

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

3. The District Magistrate, Banka.

4. The District Programme Officer, Banka.

5. The Block Development Officer, Banka, District- Banka.

6. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Secretary, Primary Teacher Employment Committee, Chhatrapal, P.S. and District- Banka.

7. The Panchayat Sachiv, Chhatrapal, P.S. and District- Banka.

8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Chhatrapal, Police Station and DistrictBanka.

9. Smt. Kiran Kumari, Headmistress, Nav Sirjit Prathmik Vidyalaya Ustigaura, Panchayat Chhtrapal, Police Station and District- Banka. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Rajib Ranjan Jha, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr. Hitesh Suman, AC to SC 13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 12-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied payment of salary for certain period from 16.8.2010 to 20.4.2011 and from the month of July, 2017 till date. This Court would find that in respect of petitioner's claim for salary the matter had been considered by this Court earlier also and finally in the contempt proceeding arising out of MJC No. 1086 of 2016 on 1.11.2017 this Court while observing that in case of any discrepancy and variation as to the time from

Patna High Court CWJC No.5038 of 2018(2) dt.12-12-2018 2/2 which petitioner's entitlement accrues he may point out to the authorities for redressal of her grievance. By granting such liberty, the contempt petition was disposed of. There is nothing on record to show that pursuant to the said liberty granted by this Court on 1.11.2017, the petitioner has ever approached any authority for redressal of her grievances. Since the petitioner has not approached any authority after the liberty granted by this Court, as noted herein above, at present there is no scope for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi U