IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2682 of 2011 Umesh Arya SON OF LATE DEOSHARAN ARYA RESIDENT OF KURSELA, P.S. KURSELA, DISTRICT KATIHAR. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR. 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KATIHAR. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, KATIHAR. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PRANPUR, KATIHAR. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BARSOI, KATIHAR. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KORHA, KATIHAR. ---------------------------------- 3 18/08/2011 Petitioner filed this writ application for a direction upon the respondents to pay him his salary which is due since March, 1997. In the counter affidavit which has been filed today, the explanation offered by the respondents is that the salary has been paid to the petitioner till November, 1998. From December, 1998 to February, 2005 his salary was held up due to lack of Last Pay Certificate which was not forwarded by the concerned authority from his last place of posting. It is also stated that the petitioner was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was conducted in the year 2009 wherein enquiry report - 2 - has been submitted. Yet another aspect which has been contended in the counter affidavit is that there is certificate case pending against the petitioner because he had taken advances for execution of the schemes which he had not reconciled. Certificate case is not an issue before this Court. It is the question of payment of salary for the period the petitioner has worked. Lack of availability of last pay certificate is not the business of an employee. Such duty is upon the employer and they have an obligation to ensure that the last pay certificate of an employee is sent to his transferred place at the earliest. Now that an assurance has been extended to the Court, on the basis of the stand and the instruction by the State government, that the matter is going to be expedited. The Court directs the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Katihar (respondent no. 4) that acting as a nodal officer, he must ensure that whatever is required to be done in this regard is to be done within a period of three months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. If the things are not sorted out within the time frame fixed earlier, occasion may arise - 3 - for the petitioner to revert to this Court, may have to take strict view of the matter. This writ application stands allowed with the direction aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)