IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12617 of 1996 YOGENDRA THAKUR, son of Shri Raman Thakur, resident of village – Ahmadpur, P.S. Sarairanjan, District – Samastipur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Project Convenor, Tube-well Section, Minor Irrigation, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer (North), Minor Irrigation, Tube-well Section, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Tube-well Circle, Darbhanga. 5. The Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division, Minor Irrigation, Samastipur. ----------- 04. 3.8.2010 The speaking order contained in annexure-5 dated 2.1.1995 is under challenge in the present writ application. This order has been passed in the background that the petitioner had moved the High Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 349 of 1993 for a direction upon the responders to appoint him on the post of a typist and to give him pay-scale and other benefits in the background that he was made to work on that post for some time. Case of the petitioner is that even though he was appointed on the post of a peon initially but looking at his capability and ability to perform the work of a typist, work was taken from him at least for the period 13.4.1989 to 20.7.1994. The earlier writ application came to be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to move the respondents by way of a representation and the respondents were directed to pass a speaking order. One aspect which must be recorded is that the petitioner has superannuated on the post of peon years ago and therefore there is no occasion for this Court now to consider whether he was eligible for 2 appointment/regularization on the post of a typist at such a belated stage. Such a debate or argument would only be academic now. The other aspect which requires some consideration is that there is a finding recorded by the Chief Engineer, the author of the speaking order, that the petitioner was made to perform the duty of a typist for about 4-5 years. This aspect has not been disputed in the speaking order. What would be the entitlement of the petitioner for performing such a job is an issue which requires consideration by the respondents, which has not been done. The Court is inclined to give indulgence to the petitioner to move the competent authority with regard to the claim to which he in his opinion is entitled to by way of payment for the work he had performed as a typist for 4-5 years, which is not a matter of dispute any more. The writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to lodge his claim with the competent authority with regard to the period he had worked or the period he was made to work as a typist and the benefit flowing therefrom in terms of remuneration. The writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)