JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel representing all the respondents. 2. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Railway Protection Force (RPF) on 05.07.2008 after being subjected to Medical Examination. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Constable in Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) on 30.04.2010. As employees are to undergo periodic medical examination, the petitioner had gone through one such process on 16.03.2013 and he was declared NOT FIT in B1 category as per observation made by the Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, N.F. Railway, Rangia. As a corollary, the petitioner was kept in Sick List at 1st Battalion, RPSF, Lumding. He received salary etc. until the month of September, 2013. Stoppage of salary on and from October, 2013 without any reason being assigned, constrained the petitioner to institute the present proceedings. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5, an admission is made that the petitioner had been paid salary up to September, 2013. An issue is sought to be raised that at the time of his initial appointment, the petitioner had put his signature as Anand Chandra Barman instead of Anand Chandra Roy in the Medical Certificate. This aspect is denied by the petitioner in his affidavit-in-reply. According to the respondents, this is a matter requiring investigation to ascertain as to how a person who was certified as unfit in B1 could be given appointment. 4. Notwithstanding any investigation/enquiry that may be made by the respondents, the fact remains that the petitioner continues to be an employee in Railway Protection Special Force until today. Mr. B.N. Gogoi also fairly submits that the petitioner has continued to remain in the Force and has not been discharged from service. In this respect Mr. Mazumdar also submits that the respondents have initiated enquiry against the petitioner by submitting Charge-Sheet on 15.07.2016. This fact also goes to show that the petitioner is well in service until this date. 5. As this writ petition is only confined to payment of salary, current and arrear, w.e.f. October, 2013, this Court is of the considered view that payment by way of salary could not have been withheld, in as much as, the petitioner continues to be in service and has not been subjected to any removal/discharge from service until this date. 5. As this writ petition is only confined to payment of salary, current and arrear, w.e.f. October, 2013, this Court is of the considered view that payment by way of salary could not have been withheld, in as much as, the petitioner continues to be in service and has not been subjected to any removal/discharge from service until this date. What would be the outcome of the enquiry now initiated against the petitioner is a different matter altogether, but in so far as payment of salary to the petitioner is concerned, denial of same is not found appropriate on the part of the respondents. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to make payment of the salary to the petitioner, arrear and current, w.e.f. October, 2013 within a period of 4(four) weeks from today. Petitioner is permitted to furnish a copy of this order to the concerned respondents for their doing the needful in terms of the above. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.