Khushboo Kumari vs State Of Bihar And Ors

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Ram Vinay Prasad Singh @ Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shilpa Singh, learned GA 12 along with learned AC to

GA 12 for the State.

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

“(i) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing up on the Respondents concerned (specially Respondent No. 4 and 5) to pay the

due salary of the petitioner of the working period since 07.07.2012 to up till now in view of order dated 18.01.2016 passed in Appeal Case No. 22 of

2015-16 under which Respondents were directed to make payment of the due salary of the petitioner on the basis of absentee sent by the competent

authority as well as in view of consequential letter bearing Letter No. 43 dated 12.01.2019 issued from the level of Respondent No. 3 (Regional

Deputy Director of Education, Munger) addressed to Respondent No. 4 (District Education Officer, Lakhisarai) directing to ensure the payment of

due salary to the petitioner earns in compliance to order passed by learned District Appellate Authority, Lakhisarai but scarcely one month salary of

November, 2019 has only been paid and rest has not been paid as yet without assigning any valid reason which is not only illegal rather contrary to

Article 21 as well as Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the Letter No. 940 dated 31.07.2020 (as contained in Annexure-10) issued under the

signature of Respondent No. 5 (District Programme Officer (Estt.), Lakhisarai under which without proper verification of absentees sent by the

Headmaster of the School (Respondent No. 7) as well as with oblique motive directed the petitioner and others who has been paid due salary of one

month only be refunded within (3) three days failing with criminal case will be instituted against the petitioner which is not proper in the eye of law.

(iii) Any other order/orders for granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the

case.â€​

At the outset, learned counsel for the State submitted that counter affidavit has been filed which discloses that the very appointment of the

petitioner was based on forged document for which proceedings have been initiated and she is also accused of fraudulent withdrawal of money.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter of fraudulent certificate being submitted by the petitioner for the sake of employment is

still sub judice and the petitioner has not yet been declared guilty. However, he fairly submitted that the writ petition be disposed off with liberty to

move before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, as would be required, in the event the petitioner is exonerated of the charges.

In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to move before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, as

the case may be, in the event she is exonerated of the charges.

Let the main application supported by affidavit be e filed by learned counsel for the petitioner latest by day after tomorrow.