IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8996 of 2002 PRAMOD KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 12.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed on the post of Tracer and posted in the Rural Engineering Organization Works Circle at Dumka. His services came to be terminated when he along with others came to this Court in CWJC No. 6753 of 1990. On 21.1.1992 a Bench of this Court set aside the order of termination inter alia noticing that the termination orders could not have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. He came to this Court again in CWJC No. 6261 of 1994 with a claim for forwarding his last pay certificate and other necessary papers from the Rural Engineering Organization, Godda to the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Masaurhi in the State of Bihar, where he has now joined. This Court on 10.3.1995 directed the State Respondents to issue the last pay certificate and send the service book of the petitioner to the Rural Engineering Organization, Masaurhi. In so far as the claim for arrears of salary was concerned, this Court opined that it was not in a position to pass any positive order but granted liberty to file representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received his salary up to September, 1999 and only thereafter he is not being allowed to sign the attendance register and consequently being deprived of salary also. 2 Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. It states that the last pay certificate and service book of the petitioner have been forwarded to the Rural Engineering Organization, Masaurhi on 8.11.1995. Counter affidavit on behalf of Respondents 4 & 5, official of the State of Bihar is that this Court did not quash the termination order of the petitioner in CWJC No. 6753 of 1990. Those whose termination was quashed were reappointed. The petitioner did not submit his rejoining and is absent from duty with effect from October, 1999. Subsequently in paragraph 11 the Respondents submit that the petitioner was no more in service since 10.10.1990. The contradiction in the dates of the counter affidavit of Respondents 4 & 5 has to be appropriately noticed at this stage also. But the counter affidavit also states that his L.P.C., service book had been received at Masaurhi and he was being paid salary regularly for the working period. That this Court in CWJC No. 6261 of 1994 did direct consideration of the claim of salary of the petitioner but till now the petitioner had made no efforts for the same. The nature of controversy brought to the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the manner in which the Respondents seek to meet the same disappoints this Court. The whole writ petition is turning purely on issues of fact in the matters of administration. The petitioner claims to be working but denied to sign the attendance register. The Respondents admit that his service book has been received at Masaurhi. The order of this Court in 3 CWJC No. 6753 of 1990 admits of no ambiguity in setting aside the termination order when the Respondents in their counter affidavit urge that the termination order of the petitioner was not set aside. Be that as it may, on the contradictory dates mentioned in the counter affidavit, this Court finds it very difficult to arrive at any positive findings as to what happened ultimately to the petitioner after the order of this Court in CWJC No. 6753 of 1990. That his service book and L.P.C. may have come to Masaurhi thereafter shall not suffice unless the petitioner worked or presented himself for work but was wrongly denied work. These are issues of facts to be decided by the Respondent State of Bihar itself. The matter is remitted to Respondent no. 1 with liberty to depute any other senior official at Secretariat level to examine the entire matter with regard to the status of the petitioner, whether he is working or whether he was denied work and then pass appropriate orders with regard to his claims within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)