Md. Hadis Ahmad @ Mohammad Hadis Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.193 of 2019 ====================================================== Md. Hadis Ahmad @ Mohammad Hadis Ahmad S/o Suleman Ansari R/oVillage-Hasna @ Hasna Gaddi P.O-Ramnagar, Block- Gayaghat DistrictMuzaffarpur was working as Talimi Markaj Siksha Swamsevi in Govt. Primary School,Bhusra Kanya, Gayaghat District-Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Secretary, Education, Department, Bihar Patna. 3.

The Director, Education Department, Bihar Patna. 4.

The Collector, Muzaffarpur.

5.

The District Education Officer,Literacy, Muzaffarpur. 6.

The District Program Officer, Secondary Education and Literacy, Muzaffarpur null null 7.

The Block Education Officer, Gayaghat Muzaffarpur. 8.

The Headmaster cum Member Secretary, Selection Committee, Govt. Primary School, Bhusra Kanya, Gaya ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Manoj, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Subash Chandra Mishra -Sc16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 20-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner has two fold grievances. The first grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid remuneration for the period he has worked as Talimi Markaz. The second grievance of the petitioner is that without compliance of natural justice the petitioner has been restrained from working as Talimi Markaz.

Patna High Court CWJC No.193 of 2019(3) dt.20-08-2019 2/2 So far as the first grievance is concerned, the Court directs the respondent- District Programme Officer (Saksharta), Muzaffarpur to take appropriate decision after verification of the record and if it is found on verification of the record that the petitioner has actually worked, the respondent shall ensure payment of remuneration for the period the petitioner has actually worked.

So far as the grievance as to restraining the petitioner from working is concerned, the Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority and raise all pleas including the plea that his name does not figure in the list of 82 Talimi Markaz against whom direction has been issued by the Director for removal, for appropriate decision in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/- U