IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10393 of 2004 RAM PRAVESH SINGH, son of late Chandradeo Singh, resident of village Masarh, P.S. Udwant Nagar, District Bhojpur, Ara. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department of Health Medical Education & Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur, Ara. 4. Incharge Medical Officer, Addl. Primary Health Centre, Udwant Nagar, District Bhojpur. ----------- 4 20.8.2010 Heard Mr. Mayanand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “(i)For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period from June 1992 to June 99 of 30 months with 24% interest which was not paid due to absence of allotment even after retirement of petitioner. (ii)To issuance further writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of difference of pay for the period from 1989 to 2002 with 24% interest which too is not paid even after retirement of petitioner. (iii)For issuance of writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) by way of compensation to the petitioner towards loss and harassment caused to the petitioner.” At the out set Mr. Mayanand Jha, having regard to discovery of the fact from the counter affidavit that the petitioner was a veteran criminal facing number of prosecution, would confine prayer of the petitioner to the admitted dues for the period there is no controversy regarding his working on the post held by him prior to his superannuation on 31.1.2002. In the opinion of this Court, Mr. Jha has been very fair 2 otherwise this Court had to initiate a suo-motu contempt against the petitioner for making false statement in the writ application by way of claiming payment of salary for the period he was admittedly in jail custody and had even then not disclosed about the same. Had the counter affidavit been not filed in this case the petitioner’s payment of salary along with claim of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- + 24% interest on the arrears of dues probably could have become payable to him. The writ jurisdiction being a discretionary jurisdiction, any person approaching the Court with not clean hand and making false statement normally has to be held disentitled for any relief on that ground alone. Suppression of fact in this case being writ large on the face of record, this Court was inclined to dismiss this writ application with exemplary costs but for the very fair approach of Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering, however, that the respondents have admitted payment of Rs. 45,444/- for which a bill was also presented vide bill no.67/ 2004-05, if the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner till date as is claimed by him in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit sworn by him on 20.8.2010, this Court would direct the respondents to make payment of salary of the aforementioned amount. Baring the aforementioned amount, the petitioner will not be entitled for payment of salary as claimed in the writ application, inasmuch as there is serious controversy with regard 3 to the petitioner being present on duty. Presumption of the petitioner that he will not be entitled for payment of salary only for the period in custody, may be his own belief because payment of salary has to be done only for the work done by an employee. In this case there is categorical assertion on the part of the respondent Civil Surgeon that the petitioner was not present in headquarter in the remaining period and in fact the Medical Officer Incharge was in connivance with the petitioner had suppressed the fact with regard to the petitioner being in jail custody or had not submitted report regarding absence of the petitioner for the same period. Nonetheless, when the petitioner was facing prosecution at least in four criminal cases in the concerned period and had also been repeatedly sent to jail custody, he would not be entitled for payment of any amount of salary except the amount which has been admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Since the respondents have also made it clear in the counter affidavit that the past pay fixation of the petitioner was done, the petitioner would also be entitled for any benefit in terms of cash component if the same is legally payable and its payment has not been made to him till date. Subject to the aforementioned observations and directions this application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)