IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6640 of 2003 RAJDEO YADAV, son of late Narsingh Ahir, resident of village Gurwalia, P.S. Bettiah Mofassil, District West Champaran … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Magistrate, West Champaran, at Bettiah 3. Superintendent of Police, West Champaran 4. Officer In-charge, Bettiah Mofassil Police Station, District West Champaran … Respondents ----------- 3. 29.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “This is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from June, 1994 till date as the writ petitioner has been working as Chaukidar in Police Station Bettiah Mofassil, after death of his father who was also a Chaukidar working since 1954 and during course of service, he died.” In support of the aforementioned prayer though the counsel for the petitioner would urge many things on a particular document which would show acceptance of his appointment by way of replacement hand as Chaukidar, he would submit that there are 2 Surendra/ certain command papers to show that the work of Chaukidar is being taken from the petitioner but then there would hardly be such document which can bind the State. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any merit in this application for claiming payment of salary because payment of salary can only be made to a person if he has been legally appointed. Realizing this difficulty, counsel for the petitioner would seek permission to withdraw this application in order to move the competent authority to justify his claim of working and at least wages for the period he had admittedly worked. This order would not come in the way of the petitioner for claiming such salary and therefore, if the petitioner thinks that he can be paid any salary or wages for the alleged work done by him, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 3