ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

2. With the consent of the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of following reliefs:

(i) Whether the respondent authorities had committed serious error of record while withholding the payment of salary of petitioner from January, 2024 to till date against his continuous work in absence of reasonable/ valid reasons?

(ii) Whether the authorities had failed to appreciate that the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar referring the order of Human Rights Commission had directed the authorities for not to stop the payments usually or without adverse but they denied maliciously?

(iii) Whether the authorities had failed to appreciate that taking work and denying salary is exploitation/ Beggar, which violates the mandate of Article 23 of the Constitution of India?

(iv) Whether the authorities had failed to appreciate that the non-payment of salary for working period is suffered from voice of discriminations as identical persons/ employees are receiving their salary against respective post but he was denied maliciously and unreasonably?

(v) Whether the authorities had failed to appreciate that the payment of arrear and current salary is no longer a bounty, which dependent upon pleasure of concern authorities rather it is in ambit of 'Right of Property', which are the constitutional rights and no one can permitted to escape from responsibilities caste upon them?

(vi) Whether the respondent authorities had failed to appreciate that the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, who is highest in the hierarchy of administration within department had specifically and categorically directed the District authorities within State for non-denial of payments for working periods consequently the authorities must oblige to release the payments against the works executed without if and but?

(vii) Whether the authorities had failed to appreciate that withholding or denial of salary is worse than suspension for reasons that even in case of suspension concern employee provided subsistence allowances for survival of family as non-payment of salary to an employee amounts to depriving him of his livelihood and such person cannot be allowed to starve at the hands of the authorities without any justified reason?

(viii) Whether the respondent authorities had failed to appreciate that non-payment of salary is against the statutory provisions, constitutional obligations and provisions of service jurisprudence for which they are not suppose rather bound to obliged provisions in later and spirits or it was meant for in larger interest?

(ix) Whether the respondents had failed to appreciate that salary is essential for survival and payment of salary to the employees is only to eke out their livelihood during their service. If whole or part of the salary is deferred, it amounts to denial of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

(x) Whether actions of the respondents are malafide, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as well as abuse of power and authority due to wrong and ulterior motive?

(xi) Whether the actions of the respondent are otherwise bad in law and facts, which called upon necessary legal interference?”

4. After advancing some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for seeking the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner has filed a representation dated 20.08.2025 which has been brought on record by way of Annexure- P/2 series before the District Education Officer, Gopalganj. He further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if an appropriate direction be issued to the District Education Officer, Gopalganj to dispose of the pending representation of the petitioner within fixed time frame after giving liberty of hearing to the petitioner.

5. The a