S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2024/05 Dr.Banshi Lal Jakhar vs. State & ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 6.7.2007 HON'BLE MR.PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. H.S.Sidhu for the petitioner. Mr. N.M. Lodha,Addl. Advocate General. Mr. D.S. Rajvi for the respondent. ... Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly admitted that reliefs no.1 and 2 prayed in the writ petition have become infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioner has challenged the order of his suspension dated 23.3.2005 and during pendency of this writ petition, the departmental enquiry concluded and punishment was imposed upon the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner joined the service. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only relief pending is as claimed in para 3 of the relief clause which is in relation to petitioner's salary for the period from October, 2004 to December, 2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the respondents have not stated that the salary of this period has been paid to the petitioner, therefore, only on this ground the direction be issued to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period from October, 2004 to December, 2004. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that it is a case of complete misjoinder of cause of action. The petitioner who was aggrieved against the order dated 28.9.2004 of cancellation of his reversion back to the parent department, has filed Writ Petition No.4664/2004. According to the submissions made in the writ petition, it is clear that in that writ ipetition, the operation of the order dated 28.9.2004 was stayed by the High Court vide order dated 21.12.2004. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for salary for the period prior to that could be subject matter in that writ petition. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension only and which has nothing to do with the claim of the salary of the petitioner, the petitioner has wrongly joined the two causes of action. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts pleaded by the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was sent back to his parental department by order dated 28.9.2004. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.4664/04 in which the operation of the order dated 28.9.2004 was stayed by the order of the High Court. In this writ petition, principally, the writ petition is only to challenge the order of suspension. The claim of the salary was absolutely independent and not dependent upon the order of suspension. Therefore, the petitioner may avail other remedy if he has not been paid salary. In this writ petition, direction cannot be issued to the respondents to pay salary without determining the petitioner's entitlement to the salary and which has no connection with the dispute about the suspension of the petitioner from service. Therefore, the petitioner may submit his representation to the respondents and the respondents may consider the petitioner's representation for payment of salary and thereafter may pass appropriate order. The representation may be decided by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of submitting representation by the petitioner along with copy of this order to the concerned authority. In view of the above, in this writ petition, no relief survives, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. mlt.