IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12391 of 2009 Chandrika Prasad Vidyarthy, Son of Late Jhauri Prasad, Resident of Village Rasalpur, P.S. Dhanarua, District Patna……………………………………………………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Civil Surgeon, Gaya. 5. Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Town Block, Gaya. 6. Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Fatehpur, Gaya…………..Respondents ----------- 4 24.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. As the petitioner has now superannuated, learned counsel does not press the second relief prayed for in the writ application. He confines the writ application to the first relief prayed for therein which is with regard to payment of salary of the petitioner from March 2007 till August 2009 and current salary till the date his superannuation Apart from representation filed by the petitioner before the Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer, there is nothing on record to show as to why his 2 salary of this period has been withheld. Therefore, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gaya making a claim for payment of arrears of salary of the period which has remained due to him. Respondent Civil Surgeon will consider his representation, make enquiry and ascertain reasons for non-payment of his salary, and if it is found that salary was not paid to the petitioner for no fault of his, although he had performed his duty, he shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law for the same preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case it is found that due to laches or default on the part of petitioner, salary was not paid to him, he shall pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law for permanent withholding the same after compliance of principles of natural justice. 3 It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of claim of the petitioner. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)