Md. Aftab Alam vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and respondent no. 3.

The petitioner has moved the Court for a direction to

the respondents, particularly, respondent no. 8, to allow him to work

as Swyam Sevak in the Talimi Markaz being run at Urdu Primary

School, Pipra Devas, Barauni.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

pursuant to the due selection of the petitioner, he started working

from January, 2010 and initially he was paid till against August,

2010 and thereafter, he made a complaint to the President and

Secretary of Talimi Markaz on 29.09.2010, against the threat given

by the Headmaster asking to share the salary. Thereafter, the

petitioner was prevented from working as the Talimi Markaz itself

was closed from 17.09.2012. It was submitted that till that time, the

petitioner was paid the honorarium. It was further submitted that the

respondent no. 8 had no authority to close the Talimi Markaz as it

was the scheme of the State Government, which provides fund for

the said project.

By earlier order, the Court had directed the District

Magistrate, Begusarai to conduct an enquiry and submit a report.

From the report it transpires that there are allegations and counter

allegations. From the pleadings on record one thing is clear, that,

though the Headmaster of the school is alleged to have written to the

authorities with regard to the petitioner not coming for work in July,

2012 alleging that the petitioner had stopped coming to the Talimi

Markaz since October, 2011, but there is no rebuttal or denial to the

fact that the petitioner was paid till 07.11.2012 which has come in

the report of the District Magistrate based on verification of the

records.

Having considered the aforesaid, it appears to the

Court that the stand taken by the petitioner is clearly more plausible

and is based on contemporary documents and facts i.e., he initially

made a complaint in the year 2010 itself and thereafter in 2012 and

has finally moved the Court, whereas the sole document available to

the Headmaster is his letter of July, 2012, but the same is completely

falsified by the fact that it states about the petitioner not coming to

the Talimi Markaz since October, 2011 whereas the District

Magistrate in his report has given a finding, based on the records,

that the petitioner was paid till 07.11.2012. This completely washes

away the stand of the Headmaster and furthermore, it is difficult to

believe that when a person, who is out of employment is engaged,

maybe on honorarium, he would not attend and even loose that

money. As, till date, there is no case of the respondents that the

petitioner has been disengaged or his selection has been withdrawn,

the Court is left with no option but to direct the authorities concerned

to ensure that the petitioner is allowed to perform the duties of

Swyam Sevak in the Talimi Markaz in the school in question without

any undue let or hindrance. The respondent no. 8 in particular is

directed to ensure that the petitioner is allowed to work in the Talimi

Markaz of the school for which he shall also be entitled to

honorarium.

The writ petition stands allowed in the aforementioned

terms.