Abdul Kadir v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16359 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Abdul Kadir son of Nek Mohammad Resident of Village- Marpa, Police Station- Bairgania, District- Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

3. The District Programme Officer, Establishment Education Department, Sitamarhi.

4. The AIE Co-ordinator, (Bihar Education Project) BEP, Sitamarhi.

5. The Head Master, Kanya Middle School, Asogi, P.S.- Bairganiya, District- Sitamarhi.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Narayan Singh, AC to AAG15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 06-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to make payment of honorarium. The petitioner claims that he was engaged as Talimi Markaj and till date, he is discharging the responsibility and as such, the petitioner is entitled to payment of honorarium.

In the counter affidavit, the stand of the respondent is that the petitioner was paid the dues as per law and nothing was now payable to the petitioner. In para-5 to to rejoinder to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16359 of 2016 (3) dt.06-03-2018 counter affidavit, the petitioner has made allegation that his signature was forged by the Jaikaram Baitha and instead of petitioner, he received the amount of Rs. 29,000/- and odd. In view of the aforesaid, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for appropriate action and on enquiry, if it is found that the headmaster Jaikaram Baitha has forged the signature and defalcated the amount, proper action be taken in accordance with law.

So far as other claims, raised in this writ application is concerned, this court is not in a position to issue any positive direction. The petitioner will be at liberty to agitate before the competent authority of the Education Department who shall examine the claim the claim of the petitioner objective in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within 60 days from the date of filing of representation along with receipt/production of this order.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) A.K.V./- U