- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has confined his prayer to his claim for payment of salary for the period which he had worked under the respondents. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that upon the claim of the petitioner being verified from the records, the claim that the petitioner has worked from February, 1999 to September, 1999, could not be confirmed, in view of the fact that no records pertaining to the aforesaid period is available in the office of the respondents and, therefore, in absence of confirmation, the respondents are not liable to pay salary to the petitioner to the aforesaid period. However, as regards the claim for salary for the period from October, 1999 to August, 2000, the respondents acknowledged the same and assured that the petitioner shall be paid his salary for the aforesaid period, since the fact that he had worked during that period, has been confirmed from the records available.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would argue that a categorical stand taken by the petitioner that he had worked from February, 1999 to September, 1999 continuously, has not been specifically denied by the respondents. The mere fact that the records are not available in the office of the respondents, cannot led to the conclusion that the petitioner did not work for the period. As per the counter affidavit, the respondents have not specifically denied or disputed the petitioner's claim that he has worked from February, 1999 to September, 1999.;