IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.999 of 2010 1. KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL,P.O. DANDARI, P.S. LAKHMINIA, DISTT. BEGUSARAI, BIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY-CUM- COMMISSIONER HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER 3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER BEGUSARAI 4. SUB DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER BEGUSARAI ----------- 2. 28.01.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the petitioner placing on record a subsequent order dated 17.1.2010 passed by the respondent no. 3. While the petitioner has made certain allegations against respondent no. 3 without impleading him by name even this Court does not consider it necessary to go into those issues in view of the subsequent order dated 17.1.2010 noticed above. The claim in this application is for arrears of salary from August 2008 to November 2008. This period relates to a time when the petitioner alleges that he had met with an accident and was unable to join duty which was duly reported by him. The issue appears to be one of medical or other category of leave in view of his defence to be appropriately examined by the authority. The second period of salary relates to 2.5.2009 to 30.5.2009 and the refusal to accept his joining thereafter on 1.6.2009 and salary thereafter. Here the defence of the petitioner is the sudden accident of his son compelling him to stay away from duty to attend his seriously ailing son. The petitioner had approached the departmental Minister who issued certain orders by endorsement on 8.12.2009 upon his representation as contained in Annexure 11. It appears that the order dated 17.1.2010 is a sequel to the same when the respondent no. 3 has returned the service of the petitioner to respondent no. 4 who is now naturally required to act in accordance with law on the issue of joining which appears to have now culminated and requires a formal acceptance on part of respondent no. 4. Let it be so done. The only issue remains is of his claim for salary for the periods noticed above. The petitioner has already raised his claim along with his explanation. Let that issue be decided within a maximum period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order by a reasoned and speaking order by respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 shall also be required to decide the issue of the petitioner for salary after 1.6.2009 when it is his specific case that though he made himself available the vagaries of respondent no. 3 did not allow him to discharge his duty. Learned Counsel for the State submits that apprehension of the petitioner that he shall not be paid his current salary after joining before respondent no. 4 is completely misconceived if he is otherwise present and discharging his duties, he is duly entitled to the same . The writ application stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)