Virendra Kumar Vimal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2392 of 2012 ====================================================== Virendra Kumar Vimal S/o Sakaldeep Rajak, resident of villageChandpura, P.O- Chandpura, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

2. Shri Prem Singh, Collector, Vaishali.

3. Mr. Sanjeev Suman, District Education Officer, Vaishali.

4. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Block Development Officer, Raghopur, Vaishali.

5. Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, Block Education Extension Officer, Raghopur, Vaishali.

6. Mr. Shambhu Nath Rai, Head Master, Primary School, Harijan Chandpura Under Raghopur, Block, Distt- Vaishali.

7. Mr. Arun Singh, Gram Panchayat Raj Taghopur, Block, Vaishali.

8. Mr. Nawal Bhagat, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Chandpura Raghopur, Distt- Vaishali.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shail Kumari, SC-15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner filed a writ application, vide CWJC No. 2577 of 2008 by which the Court has disposed of the same in the following terms:- "In the circumstances, respondent Collector, Vaishali is directed to examine the matter of the petitioner, call for the original records and if he is satisfied that the petitioner was validly engaged

Patna High Court MJC No.2392 of 2012 (6) dt.04-08-2015 2/2 repeatedly as Shiksha Mitra on 29.3.2003, 22.3.2004 and for the third term on 27.6.2006 and he, in fact, functioned as such, he shall take steps for release of honorarium of the petitioner positively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the District Magistrate, Vaishali has considered the case of the petitioner and held that the petitioner is not entitled to the salary for the period when he did not work.

In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to continue this proceeding further. The petitioner, if so advised, may challenge the order of the District Magistrate, Vaishali in an appropriate proceeding.

With the above observation, this petition is dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U