### HC Upholds Termination of Panchayat Sevika Based on Residential Requirement and Factual Inquiry Reports

The petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Sevika in Ward No. 3, Rahiyar North Gram Panchayat, Samastipur, and commenced duties on 01.03.2019.

Respondent No. 5 challenged this appointment before the District Programme Officer (DPO), alleging the petitioner was not a resident of Ward No. 3.

On 13.07.2019, the DPO removed the petitioner from her post.

Following an appeal (Case No. 438 of 2019), the Collector set aside the removal and remitted the matter for reconsideration on 10.03.2023.

Upon reconsideration, the DPO reinstated the petitioner on 11.01.2024.

However, Respondent No. 5 appealed this reinstatement (Appeal No. 6 of 2024), leading the Collector to set aside the reinstatement order on 24.04.2025 based on an inquiry report.

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court seeking certiorari against the Collector's order and a mandamus for unpaid arrears of salary.

Whether the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Samastipur, terminating the petitioner’s services based on residency findings, was legally sustainable.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of arrears of salary for the periods she allegedly worked during the litigation.

The court applied the principle of judicial restraint in writ jurisdiction over concurrent findings of fact by administrative authorities.

It relied on the weight of evidence provided by an officially appointed Enquiry Officer’s report regarding eligibility criteria (residency) for the post of Panchayat Sevika.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle of quantum meruit—that a person is entitled to payment for services actually rendered—subject to administrative verification.

The Court examined the procedural history, noting that the dispute had been adjudicated twice by both the District Programme Officer and the Collector.

The Court observed that the Collector’s impugned order was predicated on a detailed inquiry report submitted by an appointed inquiry officer who had evaluated the factual situation on the ground.

The Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Collector’s decision-making process, concluding that the Collector had considered every aspect of the matter in detail.

Consequently, the Court held that the factual findings regarding the petitioner’s lack of residency in the specific ward did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

However, the Court granted partial relief by directing the District Programme Officer, Samastipur, to verify if the petitioner actually worked during the claimed periods (March 2024–September 2024 and April 2025) and to pass appropriate orders for salary payment only for the duration of actual service rendered.