IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6000 of 2009 MITHILESH KUMAR VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 14.5.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is confined to non-consideration of his representation with regard to payment of salary and other benefits on account of pendency of a writ application. The counsel, therefore, has a genuine grievance. Pendency of the writ application should not stand as a bar in receiving his payment of salary. This Court would find that when the order dated 18.2.2009 was passed on that date as the petitioner in his representation dated 1.8.2008 (Annexure 2) had questioned the posting and had wanted to continue at a particular place despite being transferred from the said place the authorities were not unjustified in advising the petitioner to wait for the result of the writ application. Now in the changed circumstances when the petitioner has produced before this Court an order dated 1.5.2009 disposing of the 2 aforementioned writ application referred to in the order dated 18.2.2009, namely, C.W.J.C.No. 395/2009, it goes without saying that the authorities as per their own assurance and reasons recorded in the order (Annexure 4) would reconsider their decision and would definitely take necessary steps for making payment of the amount payable to the petitioner in accordance with law. This application, therefore, is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the grievance of the petitioner which was not disposed of in view of pendency of the writ application filed by the petitioner earlier. Let it be recorded that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the authorities will decide the same strictly on the basis of materials on record and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 3