JUDGEMENT Mridula Mishra, J. 1. This interlocutory application has been filed by the Petitioner for amending the prayer by making additional prayer relating to quashing of order contained in Memo No. 8901 dated 1.7.2009 issued by Dy. Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna, whereby Petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 17.7.1992 and also for grant of arrears of salary for the period 1.8.1992 to 31.1.1994 with all other consequential benefits. 2. Prayer of the Petitioner regarding making additional prayer in the pending writ application cannot be allowed for the reason that the prayer made in the original writ application is completely different from the additional prayer, which has arisen on account of subsequent development. The additional prayer gives separate cause of action to the Petitioner. For this relief Petitioner, if so advised, may file another writ application. Accordingly, I.A. No. 10087 of 2010 is dismissed. C.W.J.C. No. 9679 of 2005 3. Heard counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel appearing for Accountant General. No one appears for the State. 4. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the Respondents for making payment of admitted dues/arrears of salary for the period 1.7.1987 to 31.7.1992. Petitioner is claiming, arrears of salary for this period on account of his reinstatement in service, as the order of dismissal passed against him was quashed by the orders of the High Court. Petitioners case is that on account of his reinstatement, he is entitled for full salary with all allowances. 5. On perusal of the order contained in Memo No. 2621 annexed as Annexure-5/1 it transpires that Petitioner had already been paid his entire salary for the period July, 1987 to July, 1992. However, Petitioners claim is that still some amount has remained due and for that he has represented before the Respondents. Since, Petitioner has already represented before the Respondents, and relief relates to calculation, it can be done at the level of the Respondents-authorities only. 6. This application is being disposed of directing the Respondents to consider the representation dated 28.3.2008 filed by the Petitioner. In case the claim made by the Petitioner is found to be correct by the Respondents, residual amount for which Petitioner is entitled, must be paid to him. 6. This application is being disposed of directing the Respondents to consider the representation dated 28.3.2008 filed by the Petitioner. In case the claim made by the Petitioner is found to be correct by the Respondents, residual amount for which Petitioner is entitled, must be paid to him. The pending representation of the Petitioner must be disposed of within 12 weeks from the date of production/communication of this order.