Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19360 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ruby Shabnam Ara Daughter Of Mohiuddin Khan Resident Of Village - Sondiha, Post Office- Bhadeya, Police Station - Barachatti, District - Gaya Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya 3. The District Education Officer, Gaya 4. The District Programme Officer, Gaya 5. The Block Education Officer, Barachatti, Police Station - Barachatti, District -Gaya 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Bibi Pesra Block and Police Station - Barachatti, District - Gaya 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bibi Pesra Block and Police Station- Barachatti, Distirct - Gaya 8. The Head Master, Incharge, Urdu Madhya Vidyalaya, Bhadeya, Police Station - Barachatti, District - Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 7 20-12-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and AC to SC-14 for the State. The petitioner claims to have been appointed/engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra by the appropriate/competent authority by order dated 14.5.2005 (Annexure-3). At the time of her such engagement she had passed the Intermediate examination but with less than 45% of marks. By another order dated 13.5.2006 (Annexure-5) the engagement of the petitioner along with other Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was extended from 13.5.2006 to 12.4.2007.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.19360 of 2011 (7) dt.20-12-2013 2 Since the petitioner continued as Panchayat shiksha Mitra on 1.7.2006 she claims to have been absorbed by reason of Rule 20 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006 ( for short „Rules‟) which became effective from 1.7.2006. The petitioner was thereafter paid the salary up to February 2007. Since March 2007 the payment of salary was withheld. Request made by the petitioner for payment of the salary was taken note of by the respondents and the absentee report/register was directed to be produced before the Block Education Officer enabling the Block Education Officer to pay the lawful dues of the petitioner. By order dated 8.1.2011 (Annexure-9) the Block Education Officer communicated to the respondent District Superintendent of Education and in the light of the resolution dated 04.07.2008 (Annexure-6) issued his continuance as Panchayat Teacher was held in accordance with law. It was clearly stated therein that if the status of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher is approved then required fund be released for payment of her salary. Annexure-10 is another communication dated 19.4.2011 issued by the respondent District Superintendent of Education addressed to the Block Education Officer whereafter it Patna High Court CWJC No.19360 of 2011 (7) dt.20-12-2013 3 appears that adequate fund was released for payment for salary to the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner has enclosed another communication dated 1.9.2011 issued by the respondent District Programme Officer, Gaya whereby the Incharge Principal/Headmaster of Urdu Madhya Vidhyalay,Bhadeya within Barachatti block in the District of Gaya where petitioner was continuing as Panchayat Teacher was directed to submit the absentee report/attendance register respecting the petitioner based whereon the payment of salary was to be released in favour of the petitioner. In spite of diverse instructions issued to the Incharge Headmaster of the said school (respondent no.8 herein), the said register/absentee report was not produced. Resultantly, the petitioner could not be paid her salary since March 2007. In these circumstances the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay her the arrears of salary from March, 2007 to date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that still the payment of salary has not been paid to the petitioner although she continues to work as Panchayat Teacher and on elevation/upgradation of the school in- question as Prakhand Teacher. Patna High Court CWJC No.19360 of 2011 (7) dt.20-12-2013 4 A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent District Programme Officer has been filed stating therein as under in paragraph no.5: it that issue “That however with regard to is most in question the respectfully the submitted concerned Incharge Headmaster had been directed vide letter no. 8460 dated 01.09.2011 to issue absentee statement of the petitioner and to submit the same to the concerned B.E.O. A reminder in this regard has again been sent to the concerned Incharge Headmaster vide letter no. 2762 (Estab) dated 28.04.2012.” This Court, having considered the said stand taken in the counter affidavit by order dated 26.7.2013 directed for filing of supplementary counter affidavit presumably for the purpose of producing the absentee report/attendance register of the petitioner. In the light of the said order of this Court, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the District Programme Officer annexing therewith the absentee report/register (Annexure B ) as also letter bearing memo no. 21 dated 19.7.2013 written by the Incharge Headmaster. As per the said communication of the Headmaster /Incharge Headmaster (respondent no.8) the petitioner was in the habit of absenting from the school. Patna High Court CWJC No.19360 of 2011 (7) dt.20-12-2013 5 She used to sign the register forcibly. The petitioner was, therefore, guilty of diverse misconduct(s). It has also been pointed out therein the continuance of the petitioner as Prakhand Teacher/ Panchayat Teacher having secured less than 45% of marks in the Intermediate level Examination is illegal. I have considered the submissions made by the parties. It appears that the petitioner was engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 14.5.2005. There is no controversy that at the time of such engagement she had passed Intermediate of Arts Examination having scored less than 45% of marks. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the relevant circular of the government she along with others was again considered and re-engaged on 13.5.2006 up to 12.4.2007. The said stand of the petitioner has not been disputed. The Rules came into effect from 01.7.2006. In the light of the provisions contained in Rule 20 of the Rules those who were continuing as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 1.7.2006 by fiction of law deemed to have been absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner continued thereafter as Panchayat Teacher and was paid salary up to February 2007. The petitioner has placed on record the resolution of the Patna High Court CWJC No.19360 of 2011 (7) dt.20-12-2013 6 government dated 4.7.2008 (Annexure-6) in order to prima facie demonstrate that those who were continuing as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra having less than 45 % of marks in the Intermediate Examination was not required to be removed from service. They were allowed the status of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on the day when the Rules came into effect. It further appears from diverse orders passed by the Authorities that in spite of directions issued to the Headmaster/Incharge Headmaster of the School (respondent no.8) the absentee report/attendance register was not made available to the respondents for payment her salary. To this Court, it appears that the respondent no.8 conducted himself in a manner which may call for appropriate proceeding. This Court, however, will not go further into that aspect of the matter. Now, since the attendance register/absentee report have been produced by way of Annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit, the respondent authorities particularly, the Block Education Officer ( respondent no.5) should not have any difficulty in releasing the payment in favour of the petitioner based on the said report. This Court would direct the Block Education Officer to release the salary of the petitioner on verification of the attendance register/absentee report (Annexure-B) Patna High Court CWJC No.19360 of 2011 (7) dt.20-12-2013 7 submitted by the Headmaster/Incharge Headmaster of the concerned School (respondent no.8). Let such consideration and admissible payment be made to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the concerned respondent. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/-