Nawlesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17715 of 2021 ====================================================== Nawlesh Kumar Son of Bhagwat Sharma Resident of Village - Salempur, Andharbari, P.S. Rajauli, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, having its office at New Secretariat, Patna.
2.
The Director, Directorate of Panchayati Raj New Secretariat, Patna. 3.
The District Magistrate Cum District Officer cum Collector, Nawada. 4.
The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Nawada.
5.
The Block Development Officer, Rajauli, Nawada. 6.
The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Rajauli, Nawada. 7.
The Sarpanch, Gram Kuthahari Raj Andhrbari, Rajauli Block, Nawada. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Smt. Archana Meenakshee (Gp6) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 21-02-2024
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- "1(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to continue the extension of their contractual service which has been extended earlier on the working as post of Gram Katchahary Sachiv/Nyay Sachiv of Gram Kutchahary, Andharbari under Rajauli Block of District Nawada in light of Notification Letter No. 4695 dated 12-7-2016 of Panchayti Raj
2/4 Department, Bihar, Patna and its official Gyapank 1200/Panch dated 10-6-2016 and for this compliance consequential order i.e letter No. 1409 dated 8-8-2016 issued by District Officer Nawada (Respondent No. 3) as contained in Annexure-4 ) by which directed the all B.D.O., B.P.R.O and Sarpanch of the district (herein respondent No. 5 to 7) to extend the contractual service of Petitioner till further order or tenure of Gram Kutchahary who earlier working on said post in compliance of that the Block Development Officer, Rajauli Nawada (Respondent No. 5) has issue letter No.
1224 dated 22-11-2016 address to all Sarpanch of Rajauli Block that in compliance of Bihar Gram Kutchahary Sachiv (employment, service condition,) Rule 2014, extend the service of Gram Kutchahary Sachiv in Supervision of Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Rajauli and information about action taken by him submit before Signatory authority as a result of which the service of petitioner has been extended on said post and he is working satisfactory to the respondents till December 2017 but unfortunately by the oral instruction of Respondent No. 5 the Sarpanch Respondent No.
3/4 stopped him to take work and discharge his duty said post only reason that he moved before this Hon'ble Court for due payment of Honorarium, in this case the Hon'ble bench satisfied that he discharging his duty therefore entitle to payment of Honorarium but state rigid saying as illegal appointment and take time to file supp. counter affidavit in the mean time show cause issued to Sarpanch for his extension of tenure and filed suppl. counter affidavit, finally the writ application is allowed and payment of Honorarium of 1 tenure up to December 2015 has been made but the petitioner worked in extended 2nd tenure upto December 2017 since then stopped to discharge duty on said post rather he was working since 2011, neither he removed from service as result of which the work of Gram Kutchahary became end till remaining tenure of petitioner Gram Kutchahari, the is awaiting to allow him to continue on their post and grant permission to discharge his duty on said post.
(ii) To direct the respondent No. 1 to 3 specially to enquire the matter due to dogmatic role of respondent No. 5 neither the judicial order has fully
4/4 complied nor the work of Gram Kutchahari, Andharbari is in running as per Gram Kutchahary Rule 2007 and 2014."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to approach the respondent-authorities for redressal of his subsisting grievances, if any. Liberty so sought is granted.
3. The present writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U