IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11023 of 2010 RAM PRASAD MISTRI, SON OF BAIJNATH MISTRI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATASPUR, P.S. CHANDAUTI, DIST. GAYA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDUT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD. 2. GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, MAGADH ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION GAYA. 3. JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDUT BHAWAN BAILY ROAD, PATNA. With CWJC No.11073 of 2010 TAPESHWAR PRASAD, SON OF JAGDEO YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DURBE, P.S. CHANDAUTI, DIST. GAYA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDUT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD. 2. GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, MAGADH ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION GAYA. 3. JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDUT BHAWAN BAILY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 02. 19.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioners in the two writ application(s) are aggrieved by the order of the Joint Secretary of the Board bearing letter No.2043 dated 14.7.2008, Annexure-1 in C.W.J.C. No.11023 of 2010 and letter No.1439 dated 3.7.2008, Annexure-1 in C.W.J.C. No.11073 of 2010, whereunder request for payment of arrears of salary of petitioner Ram Prasad Mistri for the period 1.3.2004 till 28.2.2005 and of petitioner Tapeshwar Prasad for the period 1.12.2004 till 30.11.2005 has been refused on the ground that this Court had stayed the operation of order dated 27.11.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11608 of 2000 and 11694 of 2000 filed by petitioners Ram Prasad Mistri and Tapeshwar Prasad respectively under orders passed in L.P.A. No.1442 of 2001 and other - 2 - analogous appeals. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that L.P.A. No.1442 of 2001 and other analogous appeals was dismissed under order dated 21.2.2008, Annexure-4 in both the writ applications, the interim order passed in the Appeals stood vacated, there is no justification for withholding the salary of petitioner Ram Prasad Mistri for the period 1.3.2004 till 28.2.2005 and of petitioner Tapeshwar Prasad for the period 1.12.2004 till 30.11.2005. 4. Counsel for the Board, however, submitted that against the order dated 14,3.7.2008 of the Joint Secretary withholding payment of salary to the petitioners for the aforesaid period petitioners should be well advised to approach the Chairman of the Board, who shall consider the request of the petitioners for payment of arrears of salary for the aforesaid period as the said period has already been taken into account for grant of retiral dues to the two petitioners by the Joint Secretary himself but the Joint Secretary has not paid arrears of salary for the said period to the two petitioners on the ground that petitioner did not serve the Board during the said period and were not entitled for payment. 5. Counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder submitted that Board having obtained interim order of stay in L.P.A. No.1442 of 2001 and other analogous appeals prevented the petitioners from serving the Board during the aforesaid period, as such, on account of interim order passed by the High Court and the Board having not permitted the petitioners to serve the Board during the said period, - 3 - petitioners cannot be held responsible for not serving the Board during the aforesaid period. 6. I see substance in the submission raised by the counsel for the petitioners but would like that petitioners should approach the Chairman of the Board by filing representation, which should be considered in the light of my observation above in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order before the Chairman of the Board. 6. The two writ application(s) are, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)