IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2206 of 2006 JAGDISH NARAYAN PRASAD, son of Late Ram Lakhan Yadav, resident of village/ Mohalla:- College Chowk, Madhepura Ward No. 3, P. S. Madhepura, District- Madhepura…… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Vice Chancellor B. N. Mandal University Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 3. The Registrar, B. N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 4. The Principle, T. P. College, Madhepura. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 28.07.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “(i) For issuance of writ/writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to immediately pay all the non-payment of arrear of salary with interest 18% per annum to the petitioner since February 1986 to February 1995 the total amount due of the petitioner is Rs. 1,66,052/- has not been paid by the respondents as yet. (ii) For issuance of any other writ/writs order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper as the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) For commanding the respondents as to why the non-payment of arrear of salary of Rs.1,07,626/- of the petitioner has not been paid uptill now since the petitioner retired as Head of the Department of Mathile from T. P. College, Madhepura. (iv) For commanding the respondents as to why the entire non- payment of salary of the petitioner has been paid uptill now the petitioner the petitioner is suffering from various type of 2 disease.” As with regard to the aforementioned prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that true it is the petitioner had sent a legal notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 5.8.2002 but then when the same was also not replied he has filed the present writ petition. Normally, having taken recourse to another remedy the writ petition was not maintainable but then considering that the petitioner has subsequently abandoned such notice by filing his representation, this Court would entertain this writ petition provided the petitioner does not use the order which is now sought to be passed under the direction of this Court as a reply of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. because if the petitioner had a cause of action for maintaining a civil suit on the basis of the aforementioned legal notice, the limitation would not be extended after getting disposal of the representation or legal notice under the order of this Court. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition with regard to certain amount on the head of arrears of salary in the first instance needs to be looked into by the Registrar of the University and therefore the 3 petitioner would file a fresh representation enclosing not only the documents but also a copy of this order, the same would be considered and disposed of by a speaking order and the payment of admissible amount will also be made to the petitioner in terms of the order of the Registrar of the University. Such exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)