Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 728 (PAT)

Niwas Tiwari v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-22

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Initially, this writ application was filed against order dated 8.2.1999, issued vide letter No. 88, as contained in Annexure 9, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was declared surplus and he was transferred to Siwan Division. Other ancillary prayer has been also made in the writ application against non-payment of difference of salary etc. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the order of transfer, however, has not been given effect to, and, thus, the petitioner does not have any grievance against the order of transfer. At the same time, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that difference of salary of the petitioner has not been paid since 1982 to 1998. 4. It appears from the materials on records that the petitioner has continued in services and is getting his regular salary. 5. According to the plea taken in the counter affidavit, general direction was issued for payment of salary to the petitioner irrespective of the sanctioned strength. However, no averment has been made with regard to payment of salary to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that this was not the main issue in the writ application and by way of submission learned counsel wants to supplement this. 7. However, from the reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that certain grievances have been made for payment of the arrears dues. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, no positive direction can be issued to the authorities to determine and pay the difference of salary to the petitioner for the period claimed by him. The petitioner, if so advised, may file a representation before respondent No. 6, Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division, Saran, Chapra, ventilating his grievances and in case, it is so done, the same would be considered and disposed of by respondent No. 6 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. It is made clear that in case, respondent No. 6 would be satisfied that difference of salary is still due, necessary direction shall be issued for payment of the same. 9. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.