IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13873 of 2002 PARSU RAM CHAUDHARY son of late Bachu Chaudhry, resident of village- Chhajan Sangram, P.O.- Chhajan Hari Shankar, Shankar, P.S.- Kurhani, District- Muzaffarpur…. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development, Dept, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Primary Education Bihar, Patna. 4. Chairman, Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bihar, Patna. 5. Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. 6. Secretary, Kameshwar Singh, Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishwvidayalaya, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 7. The Head Master, Rajkiya Krit Gajraj Sanskrit Prathmik- Sah- Madhya Vidyalaya, Baghi, Muzaffarpur … Respondents. ----------- 03. 30.06.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs direction or directions commanding upon the respondents to make payment of the salary of the petitioner in replacement scale which is due from 18.12.89 to 4.7.91 of matric trained scale along with dearness allowances which is due from 1.4.83 along with interest permissible under law.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a teacher of a recognized Sanskrit School, namely, Rajkiya Krit Gajraj Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Vidyalaya, Baghi, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter 2 referred to as „the School‟) which at one point of time is one among 429 sanskrit school which was taken over by Ordinance 32 of 1989. He would further submit that the payment of salary of the petitioner on the basis of approval of service both by Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishvidyalay, Darbhanga and Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board being made, in fact has also been made to him for some time but admittedly on account of the take over of the school of the aforesaid ordinance the payment of salary as a whole of all the teachers of the school and in fact 429 Sanskrit schools had got discontinued. She in this context refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra & Ors vs. State of Bihar & ors, reported in 1994(2) PLJR 359. To buttress her submission, she would submit that similarly situated teachers have also paid been salary by the Board after the fund was made available by the State Government. She would therefore contend that this Court should issue a direction for payment of salary of the petitioner as prayed 3 in this writ petition. Counsel for the Board in absence of a counter affidavit filed by him is not in a position to say anything on fact as with regard to payment of salary of the petitioner. He would only submit that if the petitioner‟s services were approved by the Board and payment of salary was earlier made to him even prior to Ordinance 32 of 1989 and there was also absentee statement submitted by the Headmaster of the School showing the petitioner to have worked in the relevant period, the Board can consider for making payment of salary in the scale in which he was being paid prior to Ordinance 32 of 1989. In such circumstances. In such circumstances, when the issue of facts is itself is not clear this Court would not issue a direction for payment of salary but only direct the respondent no. 4 and 5, namely, Chairman and Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board to examine the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to payment of his salary as claimed in this writ petition. 4 Thus, if the petitioner would file a representation through proper channel i.e. Headmaster of the School and would adduce evidence of his entitlement as also working for the period in question, his such representation would be examined and disposed of by the Chairman of the Board in accordance with law. If the payment of salary of the petitioner for the period in question has not been made till date and he is also found entitled for the same under the aforementioned order of the Chairman of the Board, such payment of salary shall also be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of passing of such order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)