IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10869 of 2007 Amir Chand Sharma, aged about 54 years, son of Saryu Sharma, resident of village Ghusia Kalan, P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas (Bihar) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Chief Malaria Officer, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Civil Surgeon, Rohtas at Sasaram 6. The District Malaria Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram 7. Incharge Medical Officer, Nauhatta Block, Nauhatta, Rohtas … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 21.10.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary for the period March, 2001 to July, 2007 has been sought to be answered by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit wherein only justification for non-payment of salary can be for the period 22.10.2003 to 6.9.2004 in which the petitioner despite being given an order of transfer did not comply the same and consequently did not work. The respondents, therefore, were fully justified in not paying the salary for the period 22.10.2003 to 6.9.2004 subject to hearing the petitioner and considering his explanations for not working in the said period and/or not complying the order of transfer. The payment of salary of rest of the period i.e. 1st March, 2001 to 21.10.2003 or from 7.9.2004 to 31.7.2007 could not have been withheld as there is no whisper in the counter affidavit that for the said period there was any lapse on the part of the petitioner. The objection raised by the Treasury on the salary bill of the petitioner or some other alike reason cannot be attributed as a latch on the part of the petitioner. 2 The respondents ought to have taken into consideration that the petitioner holding a post of Surveillance worker is a lowly paid employee and was entitled to get salary for the rest of the period. Since there is no dispute with regard to admitted period of working of the petitioner i.e. 1st March, 2001 to 21.10.2003 as also from 7.9.2004 to 31.7.2007 this Court would direct the District Malaria Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram to ensure that the salary of the aforesaid period to the petitioner is paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. As with regard to the decision for the period in question in which the petitioner has not worked allegedly on account of non-compliance of the order of his transfer i.e. 22.10.2003 to 6.9.2004, the District Malaria Officer shall take his final decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner may, therefore, separately file a representation claiming payment of salary for the aforementioned period of 22.10.2003 to 6.9.2004 and if upon considering such plea of the petitioner the District Malaria Officer finds that the petitioner could become entitled for payment of salary either by way of grant of leave or his actual working at the place fromwhere he was transferred or for some alike reason a decision for payment of salary for part thereof will be taken and acted upon but if it is found that the petitioner had for no justifiable reason disobeyed the order of transfer and did not work at any place in between 22.10.2003 to 6.9.2004, his such claim for payment of salary will 3 be rejected by a speaking order. This exercise also shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/