IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.356 of 2010 ASHOK KUMAR SON OF SRI RAM PRASAD MAHTO@ RAM PRASAD CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- BAGDULHAN, P.S.- HAJIPUR (TOWN) DISTRICT- VAISHALI. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, VAISHALI, AT HAJIPUR. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPRINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, BLOCK MAHUA P.S. MAHNAR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. 7. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PANAPUR, TOLE HARGOBINDPUR, P.S.- MAHNAR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. 8. DEVENDRA CHAUDHARY SON OF LATE SHEODHARI CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAMPUR CHAKLALA, P.S. JANDDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI AT PRESENT ASISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL PANAPUR TOLE- HARGOBINDPUR, P.S.- MAHNAR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. ----------- 2 20.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State as also for the respondent no.8. The prayer of the petitioner is that the authority concerned should proceed against the respondent no.8, for the alleged withdrawal of salary etc., for the period he was under the custody. It is submitted that petitioner has informed the department, however, step is not being taken by the department. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is not appropriate forum for agitating the grievances as claim in this writ application. Considering the submissions of the party, I do not find any justification to allow the prayer of the petitioner. However, it will be open for him to take appropriate action before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Amrendra/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)