IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8513 of 2010 1. BINOD KUMAR DAS S/O LATE SHUKHDEO LAL DAS R/O VILL & P.O.RAJNI BABHANGAMA, P.S.BEHARIGANJ, DISTT-MADHEPURA AT PRESENT WORKING ON THE POST OF KAMDAR PLANT PROTECTION CENTRE, KAHRA (SATTAR KATAIYA), DISTT- SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER BIHAR, PATNA 3. SECRETARY, AGRUCULTURE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE BIHAR, PATNA 5. JOINT DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE (PLANT PROTECTION ) BIHAR, MITHAPUR FARM, PATNA 6. DY. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE (PLANT PROTECTION) SAHARSA 7. JUNIOR PLANT PROTECTION OFFICER SAHARSA 8. JUNIOR PLANT PROTECTION OFFICER PATNA 9. BLOCK AGRICULTURE OFFICER KAHRA BLOCK, SAHARSA ----------- 2. 30.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The claim in the writ application is for payment of subsistence allowance consequent to suspension for the period of 21.8.2009 to 21.4.2010. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It states that the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs. 6215/- towards his arrears of subsistence allowance for the period that he complied his obligation under Rule 10 of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 2005. He is not entitled to his subsistence allowance for the period that he absented himself from the headquarter. Appropriate orders to that effect have already been passed on 28.7.2010 not challenged by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner points out from the supplementary affidavit that for the disputed period in question he has submitted documentary evidence of his illness and consequent non-availability at the headquarter. Counsel for the State submits that he has received instructions that by a communication dated 20.8.2010 bearing no. 1048 the petitioner has been asked to furnish relevant information whereafter his claim for balance of the subsistence allowance shall be considered. Let the communication dated 20.8.2010 be kept on record. Once the matter is found to be engaging the attention of the respondents who have sought for information from the petitioner there is no occasion for this Court to pre-empt matters by any pronouncement on the issue either ways. The matter rests in the discretion of the respondents to be exercised in accordance with law. It is now for the petitioner how expeditiously he wishes to have his claim considered. This Court disposes the application with the observation that let the respondents decide his claim for balance dues of subsistence allowance within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order along with necessary information as sought by the respondents. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)