ORDER : The petitioner is claiming his salary from February 1999 to April, 2004, as he had work as Chaukidar at Lal Gutua Depot of State Trading Division, Ranchi. 2. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition being WP(S) No. 6437 of 2005, which was disposed of on 9.3.2006. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under; “Without going into the merit of the case, I direct the petitioner to file representation before Conservator of Forests, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi who shall consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation. Needless to say, if the claim of the petitioner is found correct then appropriate order will be issued for release of the wages. It is made clear that payment of wages cannot be denied merely because of non-allotment of fund.” 3. Pursuant to the said order dated 9.3.2006, an order was passed vide Office Order No. 33 dated 3.6.2006 by the Conservator of Forests, Territorial Circle, Ranchi, by which, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. This order is under challenge. 4. I have gone through the impugned order, which rejects the case of the petitioner on the ground that sufficient documents were not produced before the authority concerned who was to decide the claim. In the impugned order, it has been admitted that there are evidences to show that the petitioner had worked, but, no other documents were made available to the authority concerned to come to the conclusion that what amount the petitioner is entitled to, therefore, the application of the petitioner was rejected. 5. The documents, which are necessary to come to the conclusion about the dues of the petitioner, is naturally with the Respondents and not with the petitioner. The authority, who was deciding the issue, should have decided the claim of the petitioner after calling for the records. Since there are some evidences that the petitioner had worked, then he should have directed to bring on record the documents and then only should have decided about entitlement of salary and the quantum also. 6. Since it is the employer, who is the custodian of the serive (sic) documents of an employee, it is not proper for the employer to direct the employee to produce the evidence in respect of his claim. 6. Since it is the employer, who is the custodian of the serive (sic) documents of an employee, it is not proper for the employer to direct the employee to produce the evidence in respect of his claim. The authority, in terms of order dated 9.3.2006 passed in WPS No. 6437 of 2005, had to decide the claim of the petitioner. The impugned order, in fact, does not decide the claim of the petitioner and the decision is based only on the observation that the documents were not available before him. Thus, the same cannot be a ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner. If any document, which is in the custody of the employer, is not produced before the authority, the authority is free to take appropriate action against the person concerned or can draw adverse inference against him, but the claim of the petitioner should not have been rejected on the ground of non-production of document. More so, when it has come to the light that the petitioner had actually worked, thus, the impugned order is set aside. 7. In view of the findings stated above, the matter is remitted back to the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests-respondent No. 3, to take a fresh decision after calling for the entire records from the respective Department. It is expected that he should take a decision after going through all the documents. If the petitioner is entitled for any monetary benefit, the same should be extended to him within a period of three weeks from the date of such decision. It is also expected that the entire process must be completed by respondent No. 3 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.