IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.448 of 2005 NUNESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05/ 22.01.2010 Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, learned assisting counsel to G.A. 1 and learned counsel for the Accountant General are present. The petitioner who superannuated from the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.6.2004 had filed the writ petition for payment of his post retiral dues and other dues. A counter affidavit has been filed today by the respondent no. 3 and in which it has been stated that the entire admissible post retiral dues and other dues to which the petitioner has been found entitled has been paid to him, the details of the same are mentioned in the counter affidavit. With regard to the claim for payment of salary for the period 1.8.1999 to 31.5.2004, it has been stated in paragraph-9 that as the petitioner was found absent from the school, hence the District Superintendent of Education, Munger in purported exercise of power under Rule 104 of the Bihar Pension Rules has passed an office order bearing memo no. 3658 dated 16.12.2005 treating the period as “Leave without pay”, but learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner disputes this position and submits that he has documents to 2 show that he was very much present in the school for the period in question and that he has been wrongfully denied the salary for the period 1.8.1999 to 31.5.2004. Be that as it may, as the admissible dues of the petitioner has been paid to him, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending. The petitioner, if so advised, may represent before the District Superintendent of Education, Munger with supportive documents and details to demonstrate that he was present and on duty in the school during the period 1.8.1999 to 31.5.2004 and that the finding given in the order bearing no. memo no. 3658 dated 16.12.2005 treating him as unauthorizedly absent from school during the said period is not correct. Needless to add that if the respondent District Superintendent of Education, Munger is satisfied by the explanation given by the petitioner as regarding his being on duty during the period in question with the aid of supportive documents then he shall pass appropriate orders disposing of the claim put forth by the petitioner in accordance with law. However, in case the claim of the petitioner is not found to be supportive with documents and the statutory provisions then the same should be rejected by a speaking order. The writ petition is disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)