IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6550 of 2006 RAM CHANDRA PRASAD S/O LATE KAMLA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- TARACHAK, POST OFFICE-DANAPUR CANTT, P.S.-DANAPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA, AT PRESENT POSTED AND WORKING AS HOMEOPATHIC COMPUNDER AT DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL, (DESHI CHIKITSA), MADHUBANI, P.S. MADHUBANI, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA, DISTRICT AND TOWN-PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, HOMEO MEDICAL TREATMENT, DESHI CHIKITSA, HOMEOPATHIC, HEALTH DEPARTAMENT, BIHAR, PATNA, DISTRICT AND TOWN-PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HOMEO MEDICAL TREATMENT, DESHI CHIKITSA (HOMEOPATHIC), HEALTH DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA, DISTRICT & TOWN-PATNA. 5. DISTRICT HOMEO MEDICAL OFFICER, (DESHI CHIKITSA), PURNEA. 6. DISTRICT HOMEO MEDICAL OFFICER (DESHI CHIKITSA), AURANGABAD. 7. MEDICAL OFFICER, COMBIND MEDICAL HOSPITAL, PURNEA. 8. MEDICAL OFFICER, STATE HOMEOPATHIC DISPENSARY DAUD NAGAR, AURANGABAD. 9. DISTRICT HOMEO MEDICAL OFFICER (DESHI CHIKITSA PADADHIKARI) DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL, MADHUBANI. ……………Respondents ----------- 03 04.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. Petitioner has approached this Court for direction to the concerned authority for continuity of his service and payment of arrears of the salary between 1987- 88 as well as from January, 1987 to April, 1988 and from 2 June, 1988 to May, 1991. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 353 of 1998, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.03.1999 as contained in Annexure-14. However, it is submitted by the petitioner that his representation is yet to be disposed of by the authorities concerned. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4. In paragraph no. 13 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it has been stated that despite direction as per the letter no. 789 dated 01.08.2006 the petitioner did not submit detailed application with the supporting paper for disposal of the case. However, the petitioner’s contention is that he requires certain documents, which are in the possession of the State authorities itself, which is apparent from the letter as contained in Annexure-A issued by the Director concerned. However, without going into the merit of the respective merits of the cases of these parties, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit his representation afresh as per the instruction contained in Annexures E and F within four 3 weeks. In the event such an application is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 shall consider the matter and dispose of the representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months thereafter and the petitioner should be intimated regarding such decision having been taken. It is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to the merit of the cases of the respective parties. This writ application stands disposed of. Safik ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)