Letters Patent Appeal No.766 OF 2007 Against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10115 of 2000. CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD SINGH, son of Late Sitaram Prasad Singh, at present working as Assistant Teacher in Cousins Sanskrit High School, Pupri, P.S. – Pupri, District – Sitamarhi. ----------Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. The Chairman, Sanskrit Shiksha Board, having his Office at Boring Canal Road, Patna, Police Station – Budha Colony, Town and District – Patna. 2. The Secretary Sanskrit Shiksha Board, having his office at Boring Canal Road, Patna, Police Station – Budha Colony, Town and District – Patna. 3. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, Police Station and District – Sitamarhi. 4. The Headmaster, Cousins Sanskrit High School, Pupri, Police Station – Pupri, District – Sitamarhi. -----------Respondents ****** For the petitioner-appellant : Mr. Lala Sachindra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, No.2, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Adv. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ****** T. Meena Kumari & Akhilesh Chandra, J. J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10115 of 2000, wherein appellant- petitioner sought payment of his arrears of salary for the period he was in custody on account of the false implication in a criminal case and charged under 2 sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. It has been contended before us that Rule 99 of Bihar Service Code enable the government, the full amount being given only in the event of the government servant being acquitted of blame or (if the proceeding taken against him, were for his arrest for debt). Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner placed reliance also on Rule 178 of Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 which also contains more or less similar provision but we are satisfied with the contentions raised by the counsel that the appellant- petitioner was entangled in a murder case arising out of Paroo P.S. Case No. 180 of 1994 for the offences under sections 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. We are of the opinion that it is for the government to take a decision according to the provisions and rules made and the petitioner has not chosen to represent the case before the competent authority and he has come to this court without following action but seeking relief as stated in the writ petition. Accordingly, we concur with the opinion of 3 learned Single Judge and we are of the opinion that a liberty may be granted to the appellant-petitioner to make a representation before the competent authority at appropriate forum for the relief sought for, who shall pass order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. With the above observation, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. Patna High Court Date : The 6th May 2011 Rajeev/N.A.F.R. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)