IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10131 of 2002 BRAJESH NARAIN MISHRA, son of Sri Jai Narain Mishra, resident of village Bela, P.S. Krishangarh (Ara), District Bhojpur at Arrah, presently posted as Headmaster (under suspension), Middle School Gundi, P.S. Krishangarh, District Bhojpur at Arrah … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Education, Patna 5. The District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Bhojpur at Arrah 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhojpur at Arrah 7. The Area Education Officer, Arrah 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur at Arrah … Respondents ----------- 5. 24.6.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) To pay the salaries for the period October, 1999 to February, 2000 and March, 2000 to February, 2001. (ii) To pay the difference of pay for the period April 1997 to January 1999 and February 1999 to September 1999. (iii) To pay the dearness allowances for the period July 2000 to August 2001. (iv) Which has not been paid to the petitioner without any order for 2 the same and/or without there being any justification for the same.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that this application relates to payment of salary, inasmuch as the petitioner’s salary for the period October, 1999 to February, 2001 remains undecided on account of pendency of this writ application. In view of the fact that this writ petition does not directly answer the present grievance of the petitioner, this Court would direct the competent authorities, namely, District Superintendent of Education to look into the aforementioned limited grievance of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner has actually worked in the period in question or would be entitled in law to be deemed to have continued in service on account of any order of restrain passed by the respondents which ultimately was found to be unjustified, necessary decision of payment of salary on that basis would be taken. In other words, the decision with regard to payment of salary of the petitioner for the aforementioned period would be taken 3 strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the service condition of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service and his grievance only remains confined for payment of salary for a period of almost 18 months (October, 1999 to February, 2001), this Court would direct the District Superintendent of Education to examine the same and get the decision of District Education Establishment Committee at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the District Education Establishment Committee takes a decision to make payment of salary of the petitioner for the whole of the claim or part thereof, consequential payment must also be made to the petitioner in next one month. Let it be, however, made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it has to be decided strictly in accordance with the service rules governing the petitioner. 4 With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/