IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2389 of 2010 1. RAM PRAVESH SINGH S/O GARIBA SINGH R/O 705- B,HARI OM APARMENTS NEW DUKBUNGALOW ROAD,P.S.GANDHI MAIDAN,TOWN AND DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY UDYOG BHAWAN,EAST GANDHI MAIDAN,PATNA 2. SECRETARY,BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY UDYOG BHAWAN,EAST GANDHI MAIDAN,PATNA 3. LEGAL ADVISER/LAW OFFICER,BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY UDYOG BHAWAN ,EAST GANDHI MAIDAN,PATNA 2/ 08.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as “BIADA”. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the office order passed by the Managing Director of BIADA dated 19.08.2009, Annexure-1, where-under his request for payment of salary for the period during which the petitioner remained out of employment on account of his being compulsory retired by the earlier Managing Director under orders dated 19.08.2009 has been rejected. Aforesaid order dated 19.08.2009 was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in CWJC No. 11196 of 2007 which was disposed of along with twelve similar matters under orders dated 05.05.2009 and the order of compulsory retirement was set aside with direction to the Managing Director to consider the request of the - 2 - petitioner for arrears of salary for the period he remained under compulsory retirement. Such request of the petitioner has been rejected under the impugned order dated 19.08.2009, Annexure-1, observing that petitioner has not indicated in his request for grant of arrears of salary for the period during which he remained under compulsory retirement that he made effort to obtain employment during the said period when he was out of employment as also on the ground that during the said period , others were engaged by BIADA for discharging the duties which was to be discharged by the petitioner and others under compulsory retirement and BIADA is not to pay two set of persons namely, those who actually discharged the duty entrusted to the petitioner and others who were under obligation to discharge the duty but on account of compulsory retirement could not discharge the same work. 3. I see substance in the order of the Managing Director. This writ application is dismissed. ( V.N. Sinha, J ) BTiwary/