IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14837 of 2006 SMT.KRISHNA KUMARI, daughter of Late Satya Narayan Das, resident of village- Bargaon, P. S.- Azimabad, District- Bhojpur,, presently posted as A. N. M. at Health Centre Bargaon under Shar Primary Health Centre- P. S. Bargaon, District- Bhojpur. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Health Service, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur. 4. District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Bhojpur at Ara, 5. Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 6. Incharge Medical Officer, Sahar Primary Health Centre, Bhojpur. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 20.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “(i) Issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order issued vide Memo No. 4133/Ara dated 2.9.2006 under the signature of Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur, Ara by which Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Sahar, Bhojpur was directed to pay the salary of the petitioner only from 15.5.2005 to 19.5.2005. (ii) Issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and compelling to the respondents authorities to make payment of arrear of salary as well as current salary to the petitioner.” Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the aforementioned prayer would submit that the impugned 2 order dated 2.9.2006 passed by the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur at Ara denying the payment of salary to the petitioner from July 2003 to September 2006 except for the period 15.5.2005 to 19.5.2005 is wholly unjustified inasmuch as the petitioner had always remained present on duty and thus was entitled for payment for arrears of salary for the aforementioned period. Counsel for the petitioner also wants to produce certain documents to prove this claim but then he having found that the respondents have categorically denied the working of the petitioner as specifically asserted in paragraph 6 to 8 reading as follows “6. That it is humbly submitted that before passing the speaking reasoned order the petitioner was given an opportunity to produce the record regarding work done by her vide this office Memo No. 3137 dated 19.8.06 and respondent no. 6 Medical Officer Incharge, Sahar was also directed to produce the record of the work done by the petitioner Smt. Krishna Kumari. The date 26.8.2006 was fixed for hearing. The petitioner as well as respondent no. 6, Medical Officer, Incharge Sahar appeared before the respondent no. 3, Civil Surgeon on the date fixed. The petitioner requested the respondent no. 3, Civil Surgeon, to give the another date 28.8.2006 for producing the records. But the petitioner did not submit 3 any record as she has not perform any duty. 7. That it is evident from the report of Medical Officer, Incharge Sahar who appeared on the date fixed for hearing that the petitioner has not worked. So, on the principal that no work no pay she has not been given the salary of said period. It is apparent from the facts that the petitioner wants to get her salary by hook and crook, without performing the Govt. duty it is most important to point out that a committee of two Senior doctors was constituted to enquire the work performed by the petitioner but she did not appear before the committee. As she has not performed any duty. (8) That before passing the reasoned order by the respondent no. 3, Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur the petitioner was given twice to submit the records regarding her work but she did not submit. So, as per rule no. 58 of Bihar Service Code she was not given the salary of the period July, 03 to till the date.” would seek permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to file a Civil Suit where the petitioner and the respondents can adduce the evidence in support of their respective aforementioned disputed claims, as noted above. In the opinion of this Court, the recourse sought to be adopted by the petitioner is most reasonable inasmuch as such a thicketed disputed question of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction which in fact can 4 only be gone into in a properly constituted civil suit. That being so, this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforementioned liberty. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)