Satyendra Prabhat v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8305 of 2017 ====================================================== Satyendra Prabhat S/o Ram Swarup Ram R/o Village - Charkawan (Jahirganj), P.O. + P.S. - Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad, Pin - 824125, Bihar, do hereby solemly affirm as State as follows : - .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Education Officer, Aurangabad.

5. The District Programme Officer, Aurangabad.

6. The Block Education Officer, Rafiganj, Aurangabad.

7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chardawan (Rafiganj), Aurangabad.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madanjeet Singh- Gp20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 24-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The grievance of the petitioner is non-payment of salary.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that without any rhyme and reason the salary of the petitioner has been stopped. He submits that similar matter was examined by this court and orders have been passed for payment of salary in other cases including in C.W.J.C. No. 8305 of 2017.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8305 of 2017 (3) dt.24-01-2018 2/2 Without going into the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent District Programme Officer, Aurangabad (respondent no.5) to examine the claim of the petitioner and on verification, if it is found that the appointment of the petitioner is valid and legal and he has discharged the duty, respondent no.5 shall ensure payment of salary for the period the petitioner has worked. In case, respondent no.5 finds otherwise, he is required to pass a reasoned speaking order. Such exercise must be completed within a period of sixty days.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case, it shall be the obligation of the respondent-District Programme Officer to examine the record and decide the claim of the petitioner.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U