IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14359 of 2007 AQIL HUSSAIN, son of Alam Hussain, Urdu Typist in the Sub-Division Office, Chatra, District- Chatra, Jharkhand. ..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Rajbhasha, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director (Urdu), Rajbhasha Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Divisional Rajbhasha Deputy Director, Saran Division at Chapra. 5. The Block Development Officer, Ekma, Saran at Chapra 6. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary of the department of Personal and Administrative & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand at Ranchi. 7. The Director (Urdu), Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand at Ranchi. 8. The Deputy Director of Rajbhasha, Hazaribagh Division at Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 9. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra Sub-Division, Chatra, Jharkhand. …Respondents ----------- 4. 24.06.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State of Jharkhand. No one appears for the State of Bihar. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the concerned respondents to send the absentee report and non-payment certificate for the petitioner for the period from 18.6.1996 to 24.8.1996; to the concerned respondent authorities of the State of Jharkhand in order to maintain the 2 continuity of service of the petitioner so that arrears of salary for the said period may be paid to petitioner as petitioner was already in service, but due to the reason that he was not posted on a sanctioned post, his salary for the said period has not been paid to his and this may go against the interest of the service of the petitioner.” There is no counter affidavit on behalf of the State of Bihar though the State of Jharkhand has filed a counter- affidavit. In that view of the matter, it is very difficult for this Court to decide as to whether the petitioner had worked for the period 18.6.1996 to 24.8.1996. The respondent no. 3 seems to be the controlling authority of the petitioner for the aforesaid period. It is argued that even though the petitioner had approached respondent no. 3 by filing a representation, he has not done the needful. This Court does not find any justification on the part of the official of the State of Bihar in not communicating the petitioner the decision as with regard to the absentee statement for the 3 aforementioned period. This Court would, accordingly, direct the respondent no. 3 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass a reasoned order if he holds that the petitioner is not entitled for absentee report and/or non-payment certificate. In order to expedite the matter the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation with a copy of this order which shall be decided by the official concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of the said representation. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)