IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3101 of 2003 SHIVA DANI KUMAR aged about 41 years son of Late Moti Ram, resident of village Musahari, P.O. Salimpur, District Patna at present posted as Junior Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Desing and Planning Division No. 2, Advance Planning Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, having his office in Vishweshsaraiya Bhawan, Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Patna. 2. The Finance Commissioner, Finance Department, having his office in Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Police Station Sachivalaya, District Patna. 3. The Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, having his office in Vishweshsaraiya Bhawan, Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Patna. 4. The Executive Engineer, Road Design and Planning Division No. 2, Advance Planning, Road Construction Department, having his office Vishweshsaraiya Bhawan, Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Patna. 5. The Treasury Officer, Secretariate Treasury, Government of Bihar, having his office in Vishweshsaraiya Bhawan, Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Patna. … Respondents ----------- 5. 20.07.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this application is being filed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from 28.12.1987 to 29.2.1988, 12.6.1989 to 8.10.1989, 9.10.1990 to 31.10.1990, 1.11.1990 to February 1992, 8.4.1991 to 16.4.1991 , 12.10.1991 to - 2 - 31.10.1991, 1.3.1992 to 24.1.1993, 25.1.1993 to 31.8.1993, 30.6.1995 to 4.9.1995, 1.6.1993 to 29.6.1995, 6.9.1995 to 29.7.1997, 30.7.1997 to 7.12.1997, April 1998 to 27.12.1998, 28.12.1998 to 10.4.2000 , 11.4.2000 to 31.8.2000 along with payment of due increments with penal interests at market rate and to make his service Book upto date by regularizing his service records.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to aforementioned reliefs would submit that largely the aforementioned period should be such period the petitioner was either waiting for posting or was under deputation to the different departments where his salary could not be paid due to some technical reason. He would also submit that the petitioner had all along represented his case in for payment of salary in the aforesaid period of sixteen years and when despite his several representation nothing was done he had moved this Court by filing the present writ petition. Counsel for the State with reference to counter affidavit filed by him would however submit that it would be difficult for the parent department and the respondent no. 2 and 3 to find out the details of working of the petitioner in those departments where he was placed by way of deputation specially when the - 3 - petitioner has not even impleaded them as parties to the writ application. He would further submit that the period which had already been admitted by the department in the counter-affidavit would definitely be regularized but there are certain periods which is incapable of being looked into and decided by making verification of the work of the petitioner. In this context, reference has been made to paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit and with regard to certain period of 1987-88 to which the petitioner would be entitled for payment of salary. It is not in doubt that parent department of the petitioner is Road Construction Department and the services of the petitioner were handed over to Rural Development Department and therefore for the period the petitioner had remained associated with the rural development department his payment of salary would be payable for the work done by him in that department by the authority of said department. This Court in fact would be totally in helpless situation to adjudicate such questions - 4 - of fact with regard to working of the petitioner in a particular post or place in absence of admitted details of performance of his duties in the year 1987 to 2003 as with regard to posting or working of the petitioner. That is also not within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein strictly speaking money claim cannot be even gone into under the extraordinary jurisdiction while hearing a writ petition. It however appears that the petitioner had already approached his cadre controlling authority of his parent department namely Road Construction Department and Rural Development Department where his services were utilized. Thus this Court without expressing any opinion on merit of the claim of the petitioner would direct both the Engineers-in-Chief of Road Construction Department and Rural Development Department to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision for payment of salary of the period involved in this writ application to the petitioner. Whatever salary is found payable by either of the two Engineers-in-Chief for admitted working of the - 5 - petitioner in their respective departments must be paid to him within four months from the receipt/production a copy of this order and if the petitioner is denied payment of any particular stretch of period as claimed in this writ application, the concerned engineer-in- chief for the period under his control would pass a reasoned order. Let it be made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and therefore such exercise of considering the claim of the petitioner has to be done by the concerned Engineer-in-chief strictly in accordance with law within a period of four months as indicated above. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)