Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Substantially, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to pay his salary for the period with effect from 23.7.1998 to 17.9.1998. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is getting his current salary after September 1998 but without any rhyme or reason his salary for the period aforementioned has been withheld. It is further submitted that even a formal show-cause notice has not been given to him to explain as to why the salary for the aforementioned should not be withheld and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for his due salary. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State, wherein it is stated that since the petitioner had not handed over the charges after his transfer, the salary for the period from 1.8.1998 to 17.9.1998 has not been paid. 5. No other reason has been disclosed in the counter affidavit and the only ground to withhold the salary of the petitioner is for non-handing over the charges. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that till date there is no departmental proceeding against the petitioner and the petitioner, in fact, has already handed over his charges to his successor and to that effect he has already filed a representation, but the same has not been disposed of. 7. Salary of a Government Servant cannot be withheld for indefinite period for any indefinite cause. However, salary can be withheld pending any departmental inquiry or suspension of a delinquent and for this principle, reference may be made to the case of Ram Pati Mishra and Others v. State of Bihar and ors. [2001 (3) Patna Law Journal Reports, 462] and that of Radha Kumari v. State of Bihar and Ors. [2002(3) Patna Law Journal Reports, 794], 8. In the case at hand, it appears that the petitioner has filed his representation enclosing the document showing that he has already handed over his charge to the successor, therefore, the State authorities could have considered the same and passed necessary orders releasing his due salary. 9. [2002(3) Patna Law Journal Reports, 794], 8. In the case at hand, it appears that the petitioner has filed his representation enclosing the document showing that he has already handed over his charge to the successor, therefore, the State authorities could have considered the same and passed necessary orders releasing his due salary. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, if not already disposed of by a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case, the authorities would be satisfied that the petitioner had, in fact, handed over his charge to his successor, and no departmental proceeding is pending against him necessary direction for payment of the withheld salary of the petitioner. 10. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.