Khurshid Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7043 of 2017 ====================================================== Khurshid Ahmad, son of Late Ali Ahmad, resident of VillageMoulanachak, Post Office- Fatehpur Bala, Via- Tajpur, Police StationMusrigharari, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Samastipur.

4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Morwa Block, DistrictSamastipur.

5. The Headmaster, Upgraded Middle School, Mahmoodpur Urdu, Anchal Morwa, Post Office and Police Station- Halai, District- Samastipur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Md. Asif Kalim, Advocate Md. Wasi Akhtar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar -Gp20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 22-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is non-payment of salary from February, 2009 to 18.04.2010.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner has not worked during the aforesaid period and as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner for payment of salary between February,2009 to 18.04.2010 as the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7043 of 2017 (2) dt.22-12-2017 2/2 petitioner has deliberately not worked.

In view of the aforesaid, no positive direction can be issued. However, liberty shall be available to the petitioner to represent before the respondent, District Programme Officer, Samastipur who shall look into the grievance of the petitioner for payment of salary and if it is found that the petitioner was not allowed to work for the period as mentioned above, the respondent will consider the case of the petitioner and ensure payment of the salary for the period as respondent cannot take advantage of their lapse in not posting the petitioner and taking the work. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-9 and 10 are the indicative of the fact that petitioner was not allowed to work by the respondents and as such the respondents cannot take advantage as indicated hereinabove.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. It is for the respondent, District Programme officer to examine the record and pass appropriate order within a period of three months.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U