Veena Kumari @ Veena Rani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18946 of 2025 ====================================================== 1.

Veena Kumari @ Veena Rani wife of Mithilesh Kumar, Resident of Chandralok Apartment, Flat No. 303, Doctors Colony, Near Bhu-Vigyan Bhawan, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District-Patna. 2.

Kumari Punam, wife of Rajan Kumar, Resident of G.M. Colony, P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar.

2.

The Director (Primary Education), Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Education Officer, Hajipur, at Vaishali. 4.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Education Department, Hajipur, at Vaishali.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prabhu Nath Pathak For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Standing Counsel (08) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the aforesaid relief claimed in the present writ application, the petitioner No.1 Veena Kumari, has filed a representation dated 03.06.2024 before the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali and the petitioner No.2, Kumari Poonam has also filed representation dated 02.06.2025 before the same authority and both the representations are still pending. He, therefore, submits that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18946 of 2025(2) dt.24-11-2025 2/2 petitioners would be satisfied if an appropriate direction could be issued by this Court for disposing of both the pending representation of the petitioners after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a time frame.

4. To the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent-State does not have any objection.

5. Considering the limited nature of prayer being made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ application is disposed of directing the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali to dispose of pending representation of the petitioners dated 03.06.2024 and 02.06.2024 which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-5/5A and Annexure-P/5B within three months from the date of production of a coy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

6. With the aforesaid observation/direction and liberty granted, the present writ application stands disposed of.

7. All pending I.A.s, if any, is deemed to have been disposed of.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) sanjeev/- U