S.N.PATHAK,J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Memo No. 83 dated 16.01.2013 and Memo No. JEP/-960 dated 22.06.2013 (Annexure-10) issued by the respondent No. 4, by which representation filed by the petitioner in terms of an order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5801 of 2012 has not been considered. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to pass such types of order in future, so as to pre-judicially effect his interest, which is wholly against the principles of natural justice. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay arrears of salary/honorarium to the petitioner from the date of his joining as a para Teacher/second Teacher to till date.
(3.) The brief facts of the case as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was duly selected as a Para Teacher by Village Education Committee in place of one Sarika Bala, whose selection was cancelled on 08.06.2006, due to her long absence from duty at Upgraded Primary School, Murtiya Tola, Chatra. After his selection, the Secretary of the said Village Education Committee submitted details of the petitioner to the Block Education Extension Officer, Chatra for payment of honorarium to the petitioner, although name of the petitioner was approved by the Village Education Committee and Block Education Committee, as is evident from letter dated 13.12.2011. The petitioner has come to know through an information received by one of his friends of District Lohardaga, that there is no requirement of approval from District Level for those Para Teachers, who were selected prior to 01.04.2010 and their names have got approved and have also obtained Basic Training. The above mentioned facts are evident from the information dated 22.12.2010 supplied under RTI, Act. It is quite clear that the Village Education Committee have approved name of the petitioner and sent the same to the Block Education Committee on 11.12.2007 for their approval (Annexure-4). Thereafter, name of the petitioner was approved by the Block Education Committee on 19.03.2010 on the basis of the letter No. 70 dated 27.01.2010 issued by the District Programme Officer-cum-District Superintendent of Education, Chatra. It is also stated that Village Education Committee made a request for approval of name of the petitioner before the District Programme Officer-cum-District Superintendent of Education, Chatra on 17.02.2011 after obtaining approval from the Block Education Committee. On 14.12.2011, Village Education Committee again wrote a letter to the District Programme Officer, Chatra for due payment of honorarium to the petitioner, which is still awaiting. It is also stated that similarly situated persons moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4589 of 2010 (Vijay Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and the said writ petition was disposed of on 06.10.2010 and in compliance of the said order, concerned authority made approval for payment of due honorarium to the writ petitioners of said petition vide memo No. 393/Giridih dated 02.03.2011. In light of the order dated 05.10.2012, passed in W.P.(S.) No. 5801 of 2012, the petitioner submitted his representation before the concerned authority on 19.10.2012 for the same and similar benefits. After receiving of the representation filed by the petitioner, the authority concerned, instead of considering the order passed in W.P.(S.) No. 5801 of 2012, has considered the representation only on the basis of opinion of a learned Government Advocate, Chatra, which reads as "In my opinion Reasoned order may be passed stating therein current status of W.P.(S) No. 3959 of 2010 and the grievances of the petitioner may be resolved after withdrawal or disposal of the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3959 of 2010" as is evident from memo No. 83 dated 16.01.2013. On 30.03.2013, the petitioner again filed second representation for re-consideration of his grievances by way of stating all facts and reply of memo No. 83 dated 16.01.2013 before the concerned authority. Thereafter, on 22.06.2013, the concerned authority has considered the second representation for reconsideration the grievances of the petitioner vide letter No. 960, by way of same reply as passed earlier on 16.01.2013 vide memo No. 83. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.;