IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15929 of 2005 PRITHVI SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 19.05.2010 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hari Shankar Rai, learned A.C. to A.A.G.2 for the State and Mr. J.P. Karn, learned counsel for the Accountant General. The writ petitioner had earlier moved this Court for payment of his admissible retiral and other benefits giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 16162 of 2001 and which was disposed of vide order dated 4.2.2002 holding the date of grant of time bound promotion with effect from 1.1.1986 and the pay scale fixed, as correct. Liberty however was granted to the petitioner to raise his pending grievance before the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to a representation placed at Annexure-3 submits that a detailed representation was filed before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector raising a grievance of pending claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- in relation to some work done by this petitioner. He submits 2 that the said representation has remained pending and has not been disposed of. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents and in paragraphs 6 to 8 it is stated that the arrears of salary and admissible D.A. on the scale of Rs. 1320-2040 was approved by this Court and had been paid to the petitioner vide cheque dated 21.5.2008, vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. It is further stated that in so far as payment of the dues for the execution of the development work done by the petitioner is concerned, upon verification of records it was found that a sum of Rs. 15,365/- was due to be paid to the petitioner, the details whereof has been placed as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. It is stated that although the petitioner was required to submit a vouchers of the materials and master rolls but neither he turned up for submitting the details nor did he turned up for receiving the cheque and which was sent to the petitioner by special massager but he has denied to accept the same. It is contended that the scheme was executed by two Agents and the payment as found admissible to the petitioner has since been issued but has 3 not been accepted by the petitioner. In the circumstances, nothing survives for consideration in the writ petition and the same is disposed of in the light of the statements made in the counter affidavit. Bibhash ( Jyoti Saran, J.)