ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’). 2. Petitioner while serving the Board as unskilled Khalasi was made accused in a criminal case lodged under sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. FIR seems to have been lodged on 12.08.1999 (Annexure-1). The authority of the Respondent-Board by order dated 23.02.2000 (Annexure-3) placed the petitioner under order of suspension between 04.11.1999 to 18.11.1999, the period during the he was detained in custody. The authority by invoking its jurisdiction under Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code passed an order on 23.02.2000 (Annexure-4) whereby the petitioner was again placed under suspension. The criminal trial of the petitioner ended in acquittal on 29.09.2007 (Annexure-2). In the light of the aforesaid judgment passed at the trial, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked with effect from 30.09.2007 by an order dated 07.10.2008 (Annexure-6). Petitioner was directed to be paid his full salary with effect from 07.10.2008. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that although he has been acquitted at the trial, the respondents have not paid him his due salary for the period(s) between 04.11.1999 to 18.11.1999 and 23.02.2000 to 29.09.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Director (Personnel) of the Respondent-Board by communication dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure-8) has already directed the Respondent-Superintending Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Ara for taking final decision in the matter as the said authority was the competent authority to pass orders on the grievance of the petitioner. The same view is reflected from Annexure-9. Learned counsel submits that in spite of aforesaid order/communication, no decision has been taken relating to payment of salary to the petitioner for the period(s) in question. Learned counsel relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Devendar Prasad Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2006 (4) PLJR 230 , contends that if the petitioner has been exonerated at the trial then he is entitled to full salary for the period(s) he was placed under suspension. 4. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, submits that acquittal of the petitioner was on account of non-production/examination of any prosecution witness. Learned counsel, however, states that in view of order/communication contained in annexure-8, the concerned respondents is required to take final decision in the matter. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, submits that acquittal of the petitioner was on account of non-production/examination of any prosecution witness. Learned counsel, however, states that in view of order/communication contained in annexure-8, the concerned respondents is required to take final decision in the matter. 5. Having heard the parties and on going through the pleadings on record, it appears that claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period(s) between 04.11.1999 to 18.11.1999 and 23.02.2000 to 29.09.2007 is required to be considered and disposed of by the said Respondent-Superintending Engineer. This Court, therefore, directs the aforesaid respondent to take a final decision according to law on the said claim of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The amount found due and admissible to the petitioner, if any, should thereafter be authorized in his favour without further loss of time.