IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6 of 2010 1. CAPTAIN RAM BALLABH MAHTO S/O LATE RAM LAGAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- DADAN CHAK, P.O.- GHARWARA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O VINAY KUMAR, RAJIV NAGAR, ROAD NO. 1, P.S. RAJIV NAGAR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-ADDITIONAL SECRETARY-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA ----------- 3. 12.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner claims arrear of salary from 20.2.1993 to 30.1.1999 on the post of Superintending Engineer to which he was promoted by notification no. 637 dated 11.2.1993. He is stated to have superannuated on 30.1.1999 and represented for the purpose on 25.2.1999 and 15.3.1999. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the Road Construction Department and sent on deputation to the Water Resources Department from where he retired. He is not concerned with the internal working arrangement of the respondents but is entitled to his salary in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the State stresses delay in filing of the writ application. He next submits that the petitioner has not impleaded the Water Resources Department as party respondent. This Court is satisfied that the respondents are taking recourse to technical objections without desiring to meet the matter on its merits. Once the petitioner was pursuing the 2 matter by representations filed intime the delay stands explained in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court arrives at this finding for the reason that his salary on the post of Superintending Engineer was a statutory right and corresponding statutory obligation of the respondents. He invited the attention of the respondents to their statutory obligation in 1999 itself. They refused to discharge their statutory obligation. To dismiss the writ application on the ground of delay would only be giving advantage to the respondents for having failed to discharge their statutory obligations. Whether it be the Road Construction Department or the Water Resources Department is hardly relevant. They are both arms of the State Government. This Court permits the petitioner to implead the Water Resources Department as respondent no. 6 to the writ application to avoid any technicality. The counter affidavit of the respondents does not deny or dispute his status as a Superintending Engineer and that he discharged duties till his superannuation. This Court directs the Secretaries of the Departments of Road Construction and Water Resources to sit down together and resolve the claims of the citizen in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. This Court further expects that not only shall the petitioner be paid his legitimate dues within the aforesaid period but all necessary consequential action in pursuance of the last pay drawn having tobe re-fixed shall be taken simultaneously within the same period so that the petitioner in the evening of his life as a retired citizen is not 3 compelled to knock the doors of the Court from the meagre amount of his pension when the respondent authorities contest cases filed by the petitioner at the tax payers expense. If the petitioner is compelled to come to this Court for compliance of the present order, this Court may view the matter very seriously. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)