IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 4263 of 2005 NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03. 05.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner claims that he was transferred on deputation from the office of District Magistrate, Kaimur to District Rural Development Authority vide Order, dated 13.06.1997 and remained there on deputation till issuance of Order, dated 06.03.2005, whereby the Order of deputation was recalled by the District Magistrate. Prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the Respondents for making payment of Rs. 200 per month as deputation allowance for all these periods. Considering the statement made in the Counter Affidavit, I do not find any reason to issue any direction to the Respondents, especially for the reason that in between 13.06.1997 and 06.03.2005, petitioner never claimed for any such deputation allowance. Even after issuance of order dated 06.03.2005, recalling the so called order of deputation, he did not represent his case before the concerned authority. As per statement made in the 2 Counter Affidavit, during this period, petitioner was not sent on deputation, rather he was transferred from one office to another office under the order of District Magistrate, Kaimur, for which he has got competence. Considering the fact, it would be better, if the petitioner represent his case before the concerned authority, as he should have done earlier before filing of this Writ Application. Petitioner has liberty to make such representation before the concerned authority and the concerned authority will dispose of the petitioner’s application as soon as possible. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)