IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.46 of 2010 INDU BHUSHAN KUMAR SINHA, S/O LATE GANESH PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA- RAJIV NAGAR, P.O.- KESHRI NAGAR, P.S.- DIGHA, DISTT.- PATNA ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, INDUSTRY DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR EXPORT CORPORATION LTD., 3RD. FLOOR, LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, BUILDING BUDHA MARG, PATNA- 800001. ---Respondents ----------- 8. 13.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation as also the State. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court with regard to his grievances regarding non-payment of the retrial dues, which was disposed of vide order dated 13th of August, 2002, as contained in Annexure 1, after observing that during the pendency of the said writ application, most of the claims of the petitioner have been paid. However, the petitioner was directed to file an appropriate representation before the Managing Director of the Corporation with respect to any admissible claim left out. It does not appear that any representation was filed. However, in the present writ application, the petitioner submits that total gratuity to the tune of Rs.1,90,357/- was sanctioned, out of which a sum of Rs.55,962/- being the T.A. advance was adjusted after considering the T.A. bills. The balance amount of - 2 - Rs.1,34,395/- was paid to the petitioner towards the gratuity. It is submitted that T.A. bill was wrongly rejected. Besides the above, the claim of the petitioner is that after his retirement he was engaged on contract basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.10,000/-.The petitioner worked for four months. However, he was paid for two months only and the balance amount of his emolument for two months has remained to be paid. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the present writ application has been filed basically challenging the rejection of the T.A. bill, which has not been assailed by the petitioner till date and with regard to the claim of payment of contract amount for the balance two months, the same is not payable since the Department of Industries has not sanctioned for re- appointment of the petitioner. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is not with regard to the claim for retrial dues and that too through this writ application. The claim is purely money claim. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)