Jharkhand High Court
Kaushal Kant vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 August, 2018
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 923 of 2011
1.Kaushal Kant.
2.Santosh Kumar.
3.Krishna Murari.
4.Gautam Bhagat.
5.Vikash Kumar.
6.Gopal Prasad.
7.Jitendra Yadav.
8.Yugesh Munda.
9.Mukesh Kumar.
10.Munuren Surin.
11.Niyaran Bhuiyan.
12.Satendra Kumar Yadav.
13.Hridesh Kumar Bharti.
14.Ashok Kumar Yadav.
15.Banshi Yadav.
16.Saryug Mochi.
17.Niral Topno.
18.Sunil Kumar Bharti.
19. Ram Bilash Gope.
20.Mamta Kumari. ....... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.The Deputy Commissioner cum President, Sarva Shikhcha Abhiyan,
Latehar, P.O. & P.S-Latehar, District Latehar.
3.Block Development Officer cum President, Sarva Shikhcha Abhiyan,
Chandwa, P.O. & P.S- Chandwa, District Latehar.
4.District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer,
Latehar, P.O. & P.S-Latehar, District Latehar. ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
----------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents : M/s L.C.N. Sahdeo, G.P-IV & Rajesh Kr. Singh,
A.C to G.P-IV.
-----------
th
11/Dated: 20 August, 2018
Per Pramath Patnaik, J:
In the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents for payment of monthly allowance to the petitioners, who are working as Assistant Teacher under scheme of Sarva Shikhcha Abhiyan from the date of their joining i.e. March 2010 till date.
2. The brief facts, as delineated in the writ petition is that in pursuance to agreement entered into with village education committee vide memo dated 04.02.2010 petitioners were directed to give their joining. Accordingly, petitioners submitted their joining. It has been averred in the writ application that as per the agreement the petitioners are entitled to monthly allowance of Rs.4500/- since the petitioners have been regularly discharging their duties. Due to non-payment of monthly allowance the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in not paying monthly allowance to the petitioners in spite of the fact that they are performing their duties, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.
4. A counter affidavit dated 14.06.2011 has been filed by the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. A supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.4 has also been filed wherein it has been submitted that since the appointment/selection of the para teachers was not as per the rule and Government circular. Moreover, the petitioners have not worked in the respective schools and after few days they left the schools. It has further been submitted that usually payments of honorarium of the para teachers is paid on the basis of the absentee sent by the Head Master of the school to the Block Education Extension Officer, but in absence of absentee statement of the respective schools to the Block Education Extension Officers, the question of payment of honorarium to the petitioners would not arise. It has further been submitted that as per the letter dated 04.07.2018 of the Block Education Extension Officer, Chandwa it is quite evident that as on date none of the petitioners are working as para teacher and payment of honorarium as para teacher has never been paid to the petitioners. It has further been submitted that Block Education Extension Officer, Chandwa has issued letter on the basis of circular given by the Head Masters and Cluster Resource Persons that presently petitioners are not working in the respective schools as evident from Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit it appears that since the petitioners have failed to file any documents with regard to their continuance in the schools and in view of the specific averment made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents to the effect that the petitioners have never discharged their duties as para teachers nor any absentee statement has been produced by the respective Head Masters to the Block Education Extension Officer, this Court is loath to accede to the prayer of the petitioners. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of honorarium in absence of any specific documents would not be admissible. However, petitioners would be at liberty to approach the competent authority for grant of admissible honorarium, if the same not already paid to the petitioners by filing representation to the competent authority.
6. In that event, if any representation is filed by the petitioners before the respondent authority, the respondent shall do well to consider the case for payment of admissible honorarium.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Saket/-