Disposed

Archana Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC28 Oct 2013CWJC/7877/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding non-payment of salary for a primary teacher post, the Patna High Court declined to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court directed the petitioner to raise the grievance before the Tribunal constituted under the applicable Service Rules for an expeditious decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the Tribunal; writ petition disposed of.

Archana Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7877 of 2010

¶2

====================================================== 1. Archana Kumari, D/O Rajendra Ram, R/O Village- Birpur,P.S.Birpur,District-Supaul,Presently Posted As Prathaik Teacher In Nav Srijit Prathamik Vidyalaya Yadav Tola, Hridaya Nagar Under Gram Panchayat Hridaya Tola,P.S.- Basantpur, District-Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Supaul 3. The Block Development Officer, Basantpur, Supaul. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Basantpur, Supaul. 5. The Panchayat Sachiv,Hridaya Nagar,Basantpur, Supaul. 6. The Head Mistress, Nav Srijit Prathamik Vidyalaya,Yadav Toal,Hridaya Nagar, Basantpur, Supaul. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kr.Veerendra Narayan For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp9) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 7 28-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner raises a grievance with regard to nonpayment of salary for the post of Primary Teacher in Nav Srijit Prathamik Vidayalaya, Hriday Nagar, Yadav Tola in the district of Supaul. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed by the appropriate/competent authority and the appointment letter dated 12.12.2007 was issued by the then Panchayat Secretary typed copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-1. The petitioner, therefore, although working on the said post has not been paid her salary.

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.7877 of 2010 (7) dt.28-10-2013

¶4

¶5

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5. It has been stated that in the light of an order passed by this Court on the writ petition preferred by one Soni Kumari, payment has been made to Soni Kumari. As about the appointment of the petitioner is concerned, it has been stated with reference to Annexure-A and C to the counter affidavit that Smt. Soni Kumari initially held the post. She was removed . The post falling vacant by such removal was filled up by engagement of the petitioner. Subsequently, Soni Kumari has been reinstated. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to salary. It further appears from Annexure-C that relevant documents concerning engagement of the petitioner was/were not made over to the Panchayat Secretary succeeding the earlier Panchayat Secretary.

¶6

There is no controversy that the appointment of the post in question is governed by a rule called the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. Rule 18 thereof provides for filing of an appeal before the appropriate authority in relation to grievance relating to appointment, engagement etc. on the post in question. After amendment in the Rule, a Tribunal has been constituted where the matter can be raised appropriately and effectively.

¶7

Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.7877 of 2010 (7) dt.28-10-2013

¶9

¶10

inclined to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to grant the relief. Petitioner may raise the issue as raised in this application before the Tribunal. Once any such appeal/application is filed, the Tribunal shall consider the same on its own merit in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within three months of filing/presentation of appeal.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶13

Pankaj/-

Archana Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ishrat Parveen Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Babita Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Vibha Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Puni Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.