IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14264 of 2003 DIWAKAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 03 09.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The claim of the petitioners is for payment of arrears of honorarium from February, 1994 to March, 2001. The counter affidavit of the respondents states that the services of honorarium Supervisor like the petitioners were dispensed with on 12.12.1994. The contention that they were working was wrong. Similar writ petitions were denied interference by this Court. This Court does not have the benefit of any earlier orders of this Court as the respondents have not chosen to bring the same on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that after dispensing with the services of persons like the petitioners on 12.12.1994, by a fresh order dated 5.1.1995 they were required to continue in view of the interim orders of this Court to abide by the final orders therein. In fact, even in the year 2000 the petitioners have been called upon to discharge the work of Supervisor in honorary capacity. Though 2 learned counsel for the petitioners sought to place certain documents in support of this new submission, the Court declines to go into it as it does not form part of the records and respondents have no opportunity to rebut the same. Additionally, from order dated 5.1.1995, it appears that it is identical in nature, but while the order is in a typed format, the names of the petitioners have been entered individually with individual letter numbers which appears to be superimposition. Those are matters are to be examined by the respondents. If the petitioners have worked for any period as Supervisors on honorary basis after their termination, allegedly under any interim orders of this Court, notwithstanding that the writ petition may have ultimately been dismissed, they are certainly entitled to their honorarium for the period that they have worked under the interim order. Additionally, if the petitioners file a representation bringing on record documents to demonstrate that even in the year, 2000 they have been called upon to discharge duties of Supervisors on an honorarium, naturally the petitioners are entitled to be paid the same for the period that they have so 3 worked under such fresh engagement. The writ application appears to involve purely question of facts and, therefore, is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation making full disclosures of their claims for the two periods discussed above, in which event the respondents are obliged to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order and pay the legitimate dues, if any, to be complied with within a maximum period of five months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)