IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15136 of 2006 Ram Babu Rai S/o Shiv Pujan Rai, R/o village- Basant chak, PS- Phulwarisharif, Distt- Patna----------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Patna 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police Patna 4. The Sub-Division al Officer, Sadar, Patna 5. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Patna Sadar--------------------- -----------------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 25.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner wants a direction upon the respondent authority to pay him salary after 30th March, 1998. He claims himself to be validly appointed Choukidar on the basis of appointment letter issued by the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna contained in annexure-6. Petitioner had approached this High Court earlier in yet another CWJC No. 10562 of 2000 for claiming payment of salary from 7.9.1992 till date. Learned Single Judge while disposing of that writ as contained in annexure-1 did not adjudicate the issue but referred the matter to the District Magistrate for consideration. That consideration led to direction of payment of salary to petitioner till 30th March, 1998. Payment has been received by the petitioner. This fact has not been denied but also accepted by bringing on record a copy of bank draft as a proof thereof. This time the present writ application has been filed that he should be made payment after 30th March, 1998 till now. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed. Claim of the petitioner has been denied on the basis of consideration made by the District Magistrate in terms of annexure-A annexed with 2 the counter affidavit. Case of the petitioner was considered on the basis of input obtained from the local office of Phuwarisharif. A report was submitted that the petitioner had worked on the basis of annexure-6 up till 30th March, 1998 and there are no records available in the office to show that he had continued in that capacity thereafter. In fact, there is clear assertion that petitioner has not been working thereafter and therefore the payment made earlier has been confined for that period alone. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no chit of paper that he has been removed. He has not been allowed to mark his attendance register. Only for rejecting his claim for the subsequent years such a plea has been raised. With due respect to learned counsel representing the petitioner his submissions are mere submissions, not based on any supporting material. This is a disputed issue as there is bald assertion of the petitioner of his continuance on the post of Choukidar and categorical denial by the respondents in their counter affidavit based on report sought. In that view of the dispute continuation of the petitioner on the post after 1998 cannot be accepted as a fact in absence of any unimpeachable evidence. This writ petition has no merit on this account. Before parting yet another contention of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the post in question still continues but vacant and no appointment has been made in the substantive capacity till date. 3 This is yet another issue. If the respondents feel the necessity to fill up the post of Choukidar, steps will be taken in this regard. It will be open to the authority to give due weightage of past experience of the petitioner, in case he is an applicant. This writ is disposed of with the above observation/direction RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)