IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20970 of 2011 ====================================================== Arbind Kumar Singh, s/o- Late Jai Govind Singh, r/o- village Bhaunraha, P.S.- Nokha, P.O.- Ghushia (Nokha) and District- Rohtas at present posted at C.C.A. Depot, Karaket, Biscomaun, Rohtas as Assistant Depot Manager. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Bihar State Co-Operative Marketing Union Ltd through its Administrator, Biscomaun Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Administrator, Bihar State Co-Operative Marketing Union Ltd, Biscomaun Bhawan, Patna. 3. Managing Director, Bihar State Co-Operative Marketing Union Ltd, Biscomaun Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Bihar State Co-Operative Marketing Union Ltd, Biscomaun Bhawan, Patna 5. The Finance Controller, Bihar State Co-Operative Marketing Union Ltd, Biscomaun Bhawan, Patna. 6. The Accounts Officer, Bihar State Co-Operative Marketing Union Ltd, Biscomaun Bhawan, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohammed Abu Haidar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ishwari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 2 29-11-2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent BISCOMAUN is present. Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to non-payment of salary for the period he remained out of service by reason of order of termination (Annexure-2) passed on 20.9.1989. Aforesaid order was assailed by him in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7563 of 1992 (Sri Arvind Kumar Singh versus Administrator, Biscomaun, Patna and Anr). This Court by order dated 19.1.1994 (Annexure-1) found Patna High Court CWJC No.20970 of 2011 (2) dt.29-11-2011 2 the same having been passed in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and set aside the said order. The respondent BISCOMAUN reinstated the petitioner in service w.e.f. 9.2.1994. Petitioner thereafter continued in service and now a grievance is being raised that he was not paid salary for the period between 20.9.1989 to 8.2.1994. Law is well settled. If a Court or Tribunal interferes with the order of termination and directs reinstatement of the petitioner then an independent discretion is to be exercised with regard to payment of wages/salary for the period the petitioner remained out of job. This Court on going through the order dated 19.1.1994 finds that there was no such order for payment of salary. The petitioner, after having been reinstated in service in 1994, did not raise any grievance in respect thereof. In my view, the petitioner is raising a stale claim and this Court would not be justified in invoking its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction in the matter. The prayer is, therefore, rejected. However, rejection of the prayer would not preclude the petitioner from approaching the authority for redressal of the grievance and the respondents from granting him relief in accordance with law. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)