IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12381 of 2006 Shri Ram Pratap Yadav, son of late Govind Yadav, resident of village Hasanchak, P.O. Bahrawan, P.S. Barh, District Patna, State Bihar and at present retired as the Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Lakhanpura, P.O. Lakhanpura, Anchal Bakhtiarpur, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District Patna, State Bihar … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Primary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Director, Primary Education Department, Bihar, Patna 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna 6. The Area Education Officer, Barh, District Patna 7. The Area Education Officer, Danapur, District Patna 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bakhtiarpur, District Patna 9. The Headmaster cum Drawing Disbursing Officer, Middle School, Lakhanpura, P.O. Lakhanpura, District Patna … Respondents ----------- 3. 20.7.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is only for payment of salary of two different stretches, namely, 1.4.1991 to 30.6.1999 and 1.7.1999 to 31.1.2000. From the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit it becomes clear that for the first stretch of 1.4.1999 to 30.6.1999 the salary of the petitioner was already paid to him on 2 12.2.2004 as is apparent from the report of the Headmaster of the Middle School, Lakhanpura to the District Superintendent of Education. Therefore, the first part of the grievance of the petitioner seems to be wholly misconceived, inasmuch as even before filing of the writ application his payment of salary for the aforementioned period had already been made. As with regard to salary for the second stretch of 1.7.1999 to 31.1.2000 the respondents are justified in relying on an order of punishment contained in Memo No. 440 dated 5.2.2004 wherein it has been held that the aforesaid period being one of under suspension of the petitioner, when he was also inflicted certain punishment by way of recovery of Rs. 65,703.59 paise he was simultaneously held not to be entitled for anything beyond subsistence allowance. In that view of the matter, this Court in presence of order of punishment, as contained in Annexure ‘R/1’ to the counter affidavit dated 5.2.2004, cannot direct for payment of salary for the aforesaid second stretch of period. 3 It has to be noted that the said order dated 5.2.2004, contained in Annexure ‘R/1’ was served on the petitioner 13.2.2004 and if he has not challenged the same in this writ application filed on 12.10.2006, he may not be entitled for any relief prayed in this writ application. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. The personal appearance of the District Programme Officer, Patna is hereby dispensed with. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/