IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12368 of 2005 SMT.AAKASH PARI DEVI, wife of Ram Nath Paswan, resident of Mohalla – Chhoti Tengraila, P.S. Naubatpur, District – Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Child Development Project Officer, Naubatpur, District – Patna. 3. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Bari Tengaria, P S – Naubatpur, District – Patna. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Prasad. ----- 04. 20.9.2010 Writ of the petitioner was filed for a direction upon the respondents who had withheld salary of 93 days between the period March, 2004 to August, 2004. Petitioner moved the respondents on several occasions demanding her claim but the same was not acceded to. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 where statement has been made in para 9 that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected . Payment of so-called honorarium is based on the absentee chart furnished by the Mukhiya. Since the petitioner has been shown to be absent for the period, no payment could be made by the CDPO of Naubatpur. Counsel for the State was given opportunity to produce the so-called order of rejection of the representation of the petitioner because the counter affidavit does not have the said rejection order as an annexure from which the Court or the petitioner could derive the reasons, which weighed with the respondents in disallowing the claim of the petitioner. 2 Petitioner has categorically pleaded in the writ application that for extraneous reason the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat had submitted a misleading report of absence. There is no denial of that allegation or assertion. The Court finds it strange that the CDPO has taken stand without the supporting evidence along with the counter affidavit. Since the counsel for the State has failed to produce the so- called rejection order, this Court has reason to believe that no such order exists but only a bald assertion is made in this regard. In view of the above, this writ application is allowed. Respondents are directed to make payment of the honorarium for the period petitioner has made a claim in the present writ application. Let the payment be made within a period of four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)