IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9916 of 2002 MAHESH PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 19.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and also learned counsel for Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation. The petitioner came to this Court originally with regard to a claim for arrears of salary for certain period. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of both the Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the controversy period for which the claim now survives for consideration stands narrowed down. This Court finds it difficult to grant any relief for the period from 1.10.1998 to June, 1999 on the question of arrears of salary when the Respondents contended that the petitioner was not on duty. These are issues of facts. The petitioner, if so advised, may represent along with proof of being on duty when the matter shall be considered by the Respondent-State appropriately. In so far as the salary for the month of July, 1999 is concerned, the counter affidavit on behalf of Respondents 3,5 & 6 acknowledges that the petitioner was waiting for posting. If that be so this Court holds that he is entitled for salary for the month of July, 1999. For the period 1.6.2000 to 30.6.2000 while the petitioner 2 is said to have been in the service of the Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, the stand of the Corporation in its counter affidavit is that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty for which a show cause notice from the Department was also given. Since the copy of the counter affidavit has not been served on the counsel for the petitioner, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the concerned Respondents in that regard to be disposed in accordance with law. For the period 1.11.2000 to 31.12.2000 the counter affidavit of Respondents 3,5 & 6 affirmed on 30.3.2006 states that the matter was under process. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instructions that no payment for the said period has been made till date. The only appropriate order to be passed is to dispose off the writ application with direction to the Respondent-Corporation to examine the case of the petitioner and pay the legitimate dues, if any, with regard to the first two periods as aforesaid within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of such representation along with the present order. In so far as the claim for the last period is concerned, if the same has not been paid to the petitioner, the legitimate dues, if any thereunder must be paid within a period of eight weeks since according to the Respondents themselves the matter has already engaged their attention earlier. The writ application is disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)