IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3150 of 2006 DR.MEET VERMA s/o Late Dr. Tejendra Nath Verma, resident of C/o Late Santosh Kumar Sinha, Raghunath Path, Near R.P.S. School, New Bailey Road, Danapur, P. S. Danapur. District- Patna. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR represented through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Deptt. Of Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, New secretariat Building, Patna. 2. The Director-in-Chief, Deptt. Of Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Patna. 4. The Deputy Superintendent, Sub- Divisional Hospital, Danapur, District- Patna. 5. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Barh Block, District- Patna. 6. The Incharge Medical Officer, Additional Primary Health Center, Rana Bigha, Barch Block, District-Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 23.08.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner made in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1(a). Issuance of order/direction/ appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrear of salary and other salary dues for the month of February, 1997 and salary from the month of April, 1997 till 11.8.1998 along with interest @ 18 % per annum till the date of actual payment.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has 2 been paid salary for the month, February, 1997 and also for the period of April 1997 till 11.8.1997 but such payment has been made in unrevised pay scale whereas the petitioner in view of pay revision made by the State Government would be entitled for payment of salary in the revised pay-scale. In view of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to working of the petitioner for the aforesaid period for which he has already been paid salary in unrevised pay-scale, this Court would direct the competent authority to make payment of salary of the petitioner in the revised pay-scale to which he is entitled in view of the pay revision circular issued by the State Government. For the rest of the period i.e. 12.8.1997 up to 11.8.1998, there however seems to be a dispute inasmuch as the petitioner claims to have worked uninterruptedly as Medical Officer in the Additional Primary Health Centre, Rana Bigha, Barh in the district of Patna but in the counter affidavit and the documents enclosed with it namely, the report of the Incharge Medical Officer, the Primary Health Centre, Barh it has been asserted that there was nothing to show that the petitioner had remained present on duty in 3 the period between 11.8.1997 to 30.10.1997 inasmuch as neither Out Patient Register (O.P.D.) nor attendance register would establish such presence of the petitioner on duty. It is further claimed that for the period 12.8.1997 to 11.8.1998 in fact there is no official document which could confirm the alleged presence and working of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, who has not filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit by placing reliance on a supplementary affidavit would however insist that there are numerous documents to show and establish the factum of uninterrupted working of period in question 12.8.1997 to 11.8.1998. In this context, he would rely on job allocation chart issued by the SDO Civil, Barh dated 24.11.1997 showing the petitioner to have been also assigned the duty during Pulse Polio Drive scheduled to be held on 7.12.1997 and 18.1.1998. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid document cannot be a proof of working of the petitioner inasmuch as it is at best a duty allocation chart issued on 24.11.1997 by an outsider who was not controlling authority of the post of Medical Officer who had merely, 4 in view of the governmental decision, issued order of deputation, with regard to all the doctors posted in Barh Subdivision. The actual working of the petitioner either in Pulse Polio Drive or otherwise can be only certified by the controlling authority of the petitioner namely Civil Surgeon or Incharge Medical Officer. The next document relied by the learned counsel for petitioner is an order of punishment dated 22.7.2008 relating to charge of being petition unauthorized absence 11.8.1998 to 1.7.2003 which again cannot be a proof of fact that prior to 11.8.1998 the petitioner had worked continuously. These two documents heavily relied by learned counsel for the petitioner would infact in no way would justify the claim of the petitioner and therefore this Court would give one more indulgence to the petitioner to demonstrate from any other document(s) as with regard to his claim of working for the period 12.8.1997 to 11.8.1998 before the Civil Surgeon of Patna District, who after obtaining the report of the Incharge Medical Officer and receiving comment on the documents produced and relied by the petitioner, would take his final decision on the aforesaid issue within a period of six months from the date 5 of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the payment of salary has to be always made for the work done and therefore if there be an evidence of working of the petitioner in the concerned period of 12.8.1997 to 11.8.1998, its payment should definitely be made to the petitioner but if there is no proof of working of the petitioner, a Medical Officer, which cannot be verified from the documents, no payment of salary will be made to the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)