R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) MR . Pankaj Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of State of Bihar, submitted that in terms of the previous order, draft of Rs. 31,927/ - can be handover to the Petitioner if he is present in court.
(2.) ON this, Mr. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner Pawan Kumar Singh is present in court. Mr. Pankaj Kumar is permitted to hand over the draft to Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh. Mr. Pathak admitted that the grievance of the Petitioner, so far as the State of Bihar is concerned, has been redressed. But he submitted that the Petitioner has not been paid the salary for the period from 9.4.2005 to 31.7.2005 by the concerned authority of the State of Jharkhand. Counsel for the State of Jharkhand submitted that in the absence of instruction, she is not in a position to either accept or controvert the statements made in the writ petition. She however submitted that the matter can be looked into.
(3.) IN the circumstances, Petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) regarding payment of the salary for the aforesaid period. If he finds that the Petitioner is entitled to the salary for the said period, the same should be paid to him. If it is found that the Petitioner is not entitled to the salary / part of it, reasons thereof should be communicated to him. This exercise should be completed as early as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.;