Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1898 (JHR)

Tusta Mahato v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-07

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to make payment of Mandeya to the petitioner for the period starting from July, 2007 till date and further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner so that she may not be removed from her services. 2. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 3, wherein it has been stated that in view of the circular issued vide letter dated 11.02.2005 of the office of District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, the petitioner has made her attendance at the school since July, 2007 onwards unauthorizedly in connivance with the Gram Shiksha Samittee and Headmaster of the school, hence her salary was stopped from the month of July, 2007. By way of filing supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5, it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as para-Teacher by the Village Education Committee through its meeting dated 08.01.2001 and at the time of appointment her educational qualification was matriculate and in spite of the direction of Jharkhand Education Project, the petitioner has not obtained the degree of Intermediate till the deadline given to her i.e. 03.11.2007. Therefore, the Village Education Committee through its meeting dated 18.12.2008 has cancelled the contract of the petitioner to work as Para Teacher as she failed to procure the degree of Intermediate. 3. Mr. P. Gangopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, submits that at least the petitioner is entitled to get admissible Mandeya for the period she discharged her duties and even as per statement made by the respondents in supplementary counter affidavit her contract was cancelled on 18.12.2008. 4. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner confining his argument submits that if liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the respondents-authority by filing representation for payment of admissible dues and the representation, so submitted is directed to be disposed of within stipulated period of time, the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed. 5. Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, J.C to learned S.C. (L&C) raised no serious objection to that course of action. 6. 5. Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, J.C to learned S.C. (L&C) raised no serious objection to that course of action. 6. In such view of the matter, without going into the nitty-gritty of the factual aspect of the matter, it would be apposite to dispose of the writ application with liberty to the petitioner to file representation before respondents, in particular respondent no.3- District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East, who on receipt thereof shall do well to examine the representation so filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. It is needless to mention here that if the grievances of the petitioner regarding payment of admissible dues is found to be genuine, the legally admissible dues (Mandeya) shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.