IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17181 of 2007 BIRENDRA KUMAR Son of Late Yamuna Singh, resident of Village Pacheya, P.S. Nardiganj, District- Nawada and presently posted and residing at Village-Karnpur, P.S. Supaul, Distrcit- Supaul. -------------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Deshi Chikitsa, Health, Government of Bihar Patna. 3. The Director Deshi Chikitsa Direcotrate Department of Health Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Desi Chikitsa Officer, Saharsa. 5. The Homeopathic Doctor State Homeopathic Dispensary Village- Karnpur, P.S. Supaul, District- Supaul. -----------Respondents. ------------------------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. For the State:- Mrs. Namarate Mishra, G.P. 17. ---------------------- 5. 01.04.2011 Petitioner was posted as compounder in the Homeopathic Dispensary in Karnpur in the District of Supaul. He has filed this writ petition for payment of his salary for December, 2005 to February, 2006 and then March, 2007. During the pendency of the writ petition the earlier part was paid but after March, 2007 he has not being paid on the ground that he has not attending dispensary and this has come in the affidavit of respondent no. 5, the doctor concerned. This Court by order dated 7.9.2009 held that this was a dispute raised whether petitioner was present or not and was not decided by this Court 2 while keeping the writ petition pending referred the matter for enquiry and report. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent District Magistrate annexing enquiry report of the Sub-divisional Officer, Supaul. In the enquiry report it is pointed out that the enquiry officer found that it was in fact the doctor that had been assumed all alone and the petitioner was always present. In view of the findings aforesaid, in my view that nothing revenge to be done to close the matter by issuing direction to respondent no. 4 for the District Desi Chikitsa Officer, Saharsa to ensure that full payment and all remuneration should be made to the petitioner for the period indispute within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before him and he is responsible to see that the order of this Court is dully complied with. With this observation the writ petition stands disposed of. Anand Kr. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)