IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7980 of 1997 Bikramaditya Ojha son of Indradeo Ojha resident of village Bandha, Post Office Amrai Nawada, PS Bihta, District Bhojpur ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Deputy Inspector General, Bihar Home Guards, Patna 3. The Divisional Commandant Home Guards Chajju Bagh, Patna 4. The District Commandant, Home Guards Chajju Bagh Patna 5. Sergeant Major, New Police Line, Patna 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Danapur 7. The Anchal Adhikari, Bihta, Patna….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 03- 5/12/2011 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner when the case is called out. Heard Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to SC No.21. The writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to make payment of entire arrears of current salary and allowances to the petitioner for a period of about nine months on account of performing duty in Bihta Block Office as Guards. Learned counsel for the State on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit, specially paragraphs -8 and 9 of the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner has been paid for the period for which work was taken from him authorizedly. Paragraphs -8 and 9 of the counter affidavit are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- 2 “(8) That with regard to the averments made in paragraphs-8 of the writ application, it is stated that the petitioners were paid for the period for which work was taken authorizedly. The answering respondents are not liable to pay the claim of the petitioners for the period during which they were not authorized to work since they had been ordered to move from Bihta and a new lot was sent in this place vide letter no.506202 dated 18.4.1995. “(9) That with regard to the contention made by the petitioners in paragraph-10 of the writ petition, it is stated that the continuance of the petitioner at Anchal Office, Bihta was unauthorized and in violation of the order of the competent authority.” In view of the aforesaid, it is obvious that the fact whether the petitioner worked and discharged his duty as Office Guard itself is seriously disputed and thus this Court is not in a position to go into that aspect. 2. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for the relief prayed for in the writ petition so that the matter can be decided appropriately after giving opportunity to the concerned to prove as to whether the petitioner actually worked and discharged his duty for the said period. mrl ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)