IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8647 of 2002 BINDESHWARI SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 12.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The relief sought for in this writ application is for payment of arrears of salary from April, 1989 to March, 1999 on the alleged claim that he has worked as Dafadar during the said period in Circle no. 5 of Baghaila (Nokha) Police Station, District- Rohtas. It is his case that his attendance has also been recorded in the attendance register of the concerned Police Station. He came to this court earlier in CWJC No. 7090 of 1994. This Court by an order dated 10.7.1995 directed consideration of the claim in context of a Government order dated 6.11.1991 granting certain relaxation in general rules giving directions that if a Chaukidar/Dafadar was working from before, they would be treated as Government employee. This was done in context to Dafadar having been treated as Government employee from 1.1.1990. The District Magistrate was then directed to take a decision on the issue of salary even while passing appropriate orders on the issue of their appointment on regular post in the light of the aforesaid Government circular of 6.11.1991. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no. 2. The counter affidavit disputes with reference to the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner specifically 2 stating that the petitioner was never appointed as Dafadar but was engaged as casual labour. That he had been paid for the period that he worked in that capacity. The Respondents emphatically denied that he discharged the duty of Dafadar at any stage. Even M.J.C. No. 1759 of 1998 preferred by the petitioner for alleged non- compliance of the order in CWJC No. 7090 of 1994 was dismissed. That his case has appropriately been considered under circular of 6.11.1991 and the claim was rejected by the Appointment Committee. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed. The writ application raises disputed question of facts as to whether the petitioner was appointed as Dafadar or not and whether he worked in that capacity or not. In the present situation when the Respondents emphatically deny this fact, it is not possible for this Court to pass any order for payment of his salary when the petitioner has not obtained any relief under the first part of the order in CWJC No. 7090 of 1994 and on the contrary his claim for continuance on the post of Dafadar based on the alleged earlier appointment in pursuance of any subsequent relaxation policy of the State Government has been specifically rejected. This writ application is dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)