IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.143 of 2005 MD.GHAYASUL ISHLAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 18.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Bihar Madarsa Education Board. No one appears on behalf of the State respondents and neither has any counter affidavit been filed on their behalf. This Court would have expected that after the State respondents were made aware of institution of this writ application they would have either suo motu examined grievances of the petitioner and if satisfied granted the same, or else filed a counter affidavit to oppose the claim. On the contrary they have adopted an indifferent attitude. It hinders this Court in dispensing justice. The claim in the writ application on behalf of the Association of teachers (a Registered Body) through the Headmaster of Madarsa Yatimkhana, Araria is for certain arrears of salary for the periods mentioned in paragraph 1 of the application. It is submitted that the Madarsa is one of the Madarsa recognized and aided by the State Government. The issues of salary are basically issues of facts whether it be entitlement of the claim or whether it be entitlement based on dates of work performed. The only appropriate order to be passed therefore at this stage is to direct respondent no. 2 to examine the grievance of the petitioners in light of government orders and instructions as appended to the writ application and pass a reasoned and speaking order and thereafter pay the legitimate dues, if any. Let it be so done within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall also be at liberty to file a representation setting forth their claim in detail before respondent no. 2 Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)