IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3999 of 2017 ----- Satwant Kaur, D/o Late S. Chanan Singh, R/o House No.40, W.N.- 10, Gurudwara Road, P.O. & P.S.- Mango, Town- Jamshedpur, Dist- East Singhbhum ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. District Education Officer, Statemile, Jamshedpur 4.The Secretary, Gurunanak High School, Jamshedpur 5.The Principal, Gurunanak High School, Jamshedpur ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the Resp Nos.1-3 : Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate For the Resp Nos.4&5 : Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, Advocate …...... 07 / 12.02.2025: Learned counsel for the petitioner appears virtually, he has no complaint with the audio and video quality and clarity. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “For issuance of appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to pay the salary which was not paid to the petitioner after her date of appointment i.e. on 04.10.2016 and joining on 17.10.2016 from the office of the respondents.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents-School submits that petitioner was paid an Honorarium of Rs. 56,000/- on 12.07.2017 by Gurudwara Sri Gurusingh Sabha, Mango. The respondents-School also states that amount of Rs.56,000/- which the petitioner is entitled by way of salary has already been paid and the document also contained signature of this petitioner. 4. In the rejoinder, at para 12, petitioner has stated that respondents have not paid anything to the petitioner as indicated by the receipt and the signature on the bottom of the payment receipt is fraudulent and does not belong to the petitioner. 5. From the aforesaid statement, I find that there is disputed question of fact which arose as the respondents with the document have tried to substantiate that the amount has been paid to the petitioner and the petitioner is denying the same and she is disputing the signature of the said document. This dispute cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Since there is disputed question of fact, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 7. It will be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate suit before an appropriate forum. 8. Pending I.A., if any stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.