IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16115 of 2008 RAJ KISHORE PRASAD SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Adv. For the State : Dr. Kumar Amitesh Chandra, A.C. to G.A.IV. ----------- 6/ 28/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition is being disposed at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims salary for February, 2002 to April, 2002, July, 2002 to August, 2002, November, 2002 to March, 2003 and March, 2003 to February, 2004. The counter affidavit does not deny this claim of the petitioner, much less dealing with it at all. Applying the principles of non traverse learned counsel for the State finds it difficult to oppose any directions for salary for the aforesaid periods. This Court, therefore, directs the petitioner to be paid his salary for the aforesaid periods. The petitioner was suspended on 26.5.2005. It is his specific case in paragraph-16 of the writ petition that by his letter No.157’K’ dated 2.5.2006 the Collector revoked the order of suspension. Learned counsel for the State from the counter 2 affidavit submits that the suspension has been revoked on 6.7.2009. It was the duty of the respondents to file a proper counter affidavit dealing very specifically paragraph-16 of the writ petition. The casual manner in which the counter affidavit has been deposed by the respondents disappoints this Court. The answer of the respondents appears completely elusive in paragraph-4 when they state that they shall examine matters after the petitioner reports for duty. The next contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is absenting himself since 4.7.2008. This Court directs the Collector, Araria to examine the correctness of the date of revocation of the suspension of the petitioner. Such examination shall also deal with the issue of subsistence allowance and payment/non-payment of the same. Any further claims for salary shall naturally be dependent upon whether the petitioner has worked, if he was present for work, but was wrongly denied work etc. in light of the findings that the Collector may arrive at as aforesaid. Let this order be complied with both on payment of salary for the undisputed period and the decision to be taken by the Collector by a reasoned and speaking order on the latter issue, both within a maximum period of three months from the date of 3 receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)