IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1515 of 2010 1. SHOBHA DEVI W/O RAJESH KUMAR R/O VILL- SAHEBGANJ, BHATIYA COLONY, P.S- SAHEBGANJ, DISTT- SAHEBGANJ, JHARKHAND Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE D.M. PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, GOVERNMENT 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT REMAND HOMEM, GAYGHAT, PATNA-7 ----------- 2/ 29/07/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the only issue surviving for adjudication now is the claim for salary as mentioned in the writ petition. The counter affidavit raises a serious dispute of the absence of the petitioner from duty during the periods in question. The rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit is extremely vague and seeks to suggest that the respondents are urging incorrect grounds. It is difficult for this Court in the writ application to examine disputed questions of fact. Salary can be claimed only for a period that a person may have actually worked. Let the petitioner represent before respondent No.3 along with documentary proof in support of her assertion that she - 2 - had actually worked on the dates that she claims. Respondent No.3 is then required to decide her eligibility for salary for the periods in question in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)