The court upheld the petitioner's right to seek redress through representation regarding salary arrears, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision.

2 11-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State.

2. With the consent of both the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of following reliefs:

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for partly quashing the Office Order contained in Memo No. 23 (Estb.), dated 04.01.2025, issued by the District Education Officer, Vaishali whereby and whereunder it is directed that the petitioner is not entitled for arrears of salary of his termination period on the basis of "No Work No Pay" which is apparently illegal, since similarly situated persons like the petitioner have already been paid their consequential benefits including arrears of their salary from the date of their respective termination orders.

(ii). It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and adjudicate that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court in Contempt Case No. 297/2007, thus, the termination order of the petitioner despite specific direction of the Apex Court dated 18.07.2013 passed in SLP (Civil) No. 26824/2012 was on completely baseless ground. Hence the petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits including his arrears of salary from the date of his termination order in view of the order passed in LPA No. 1739/2016 and other analogous cases.

(iii) It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any other reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled and an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions may be issued under the given facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. After advancing some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the reliefs claimed for in the present writ application, the petitioner is prepared to file a detailed representation before the District Education Officer, Vaishali within one month from today. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that if such a representation is filed within the stipulated time then an appropriate direction be given to the District Education Officer, Vaishali to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on merit within a fixed time frame, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. To the aforesaid prayer being made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent-State does not have any objection.

6. Considering the limited nature of prayer being made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ application is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the District Education Officer, Vaishali within one month from today and if such a representation is filed within the stipulated time then the District Education Officer, Vaishali is directed to dispose of the same on merit within a further period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. While passing the final order on the representation filed by the petitioner, the District Education Officer, Vaishali shall not be influenced by the previous office order contained in Memo No. 23 (Establishment) dated 04.01.2025 and he shall consider the matter and pass a fresh order. Needless to emphasize that the final order which shall be passed by the District Education Officer, Vaishali should be a reasoned and speaking order.

7. With the aforesaid observation/direction and liberty granted, this writ application is disposed of. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also be deemed to have been disposed of.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)