IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14819 of 2009 1. SIKANDAR AZAM KHAN S/O LATE NOMAN AHMAD R/O ANWAR MANZIL, HAKIM AMIR HASAN LANE, TATARPUR, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT. BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER DEPTT. OF RAJ BHASHA, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR RAJ BHASHA, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR RAJ BHASHA (URDU), BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR RAJ BHASHA, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR 5. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHAGALPUR 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JAGDISHPUR, DISTT. BHAGALPUR ----------- For the Petitioner : Gautam Kejriwal, Adv. Gopal Pd. Gupta, Adv. For the Respondents: S.C. 7. 2/ 20/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The claim in this writ application is for arrears of salary from 4.6.1998 to 28.7.1998 being commuted leave from 29.7.1998 to 19.1.1999 on account of half earned leave. Salary has also been claimed for the period ‘20.01.1999 to 3.8.1999’ when the petitioner was in custody on the ground that the suspension has subsequently been revoked with effect from 20.1.1999. The last relief sought is differential amount of salary between the period 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2003 in light of the report of the Fitment Appellate Committee. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 25.1.2003 which has been accepted on 7.11.2003. He 2 relinquished service from the post of Urdu Translator in the ‘Rajbhasha Department’. Insofar as his claim for salary for the period of custody is concerned, this Court finds it difficult to grant him the same on any plea that the order of suspension has been revoked with retrospective effect. The moment he was taken into custody, there may or may not be a formal order of suspension. Under law he is deemed to be under suspension. After he is released from custody, then only does the need of a fresh order of suspension arises. If an accused person is in custody and is unable to discharge duties, the law providing for suspension during custody, he is not entitled to salary for the period of custody, but only to subsistence allowance, as explained in (2005) 8 S.C.C. 747 (BALDEV SINGH Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS). Insofar as the other two claims are concerned, the petitioner is stated to have represented for the purpose before respondent No.3. While considering such representation the respondent No.3 shall be obliged to adequately deal and consider the letters dated 23.1.2001 from the office of the Deputy Director, Rajbhasha and the letter of communication of the Block Development Officer dated 3 6.1.2001. The writ application is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation in respect of the aforesaid first and third claims with regard to only what is noticed in the foregoing paragraphs of this order. If such a representation is filed, let respondent No.3 consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)