IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11719 of 2006 Firoz Mohsin, son of late Tahseen Mallik, resident of Village Irki, P.O. and P.S. Jehanabad, Dist. Jehanabad, at present posted as non-medical Assistant, Leprosy Control Unit, Jehanabad. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director in Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Additional Director, Health Services cum the Controlling Officer, Leprosy Eradication Programme, Bihar, Patna. 4. The State Leprosy Eradication Officer, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Jehanabad. 6. Incharge Medical Officer, Leprosy Control Unit, Jehanabad. --------- Respondents ---------- 4 14.12.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the impugned order rejecting claim of payment of salary of the petitioner for the period 1.10.1990 to 31.10.1995 is based on a sound exercise of discretionary power, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the same. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was working in the office of the establishment of Civil Surgeon when he had died in harness sometime in the year 1987. The petitioner, being the son and the dependent of the deceased government servant, was recommended by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for being appointed on the compassionate ground but, the Civil Surgeon of the district, going beyond his control, had appointed the petitioner on the 2 post on which he had no power to make such appointment. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on a post of Non-Medical Assistant in a Leprosy Unit, which was being controlled by State Leprosy Officer. In such a situation, the decision taken by the State Leprosy Officer initially to stop working of the petitioner and also depriving him from getting further salary, cannot be faulted in law. The Civil Surgeon had no business to make appointment on any post on which he had no power of appointment and if such an appointment was made, that will not clothe the petitioner with any right. The safeguard for the petitioner is that his appointment has been ultimately approved by the State Leprosy Officer in his order dated 27.10.1995, whereafter, he has been allowed to work in the Leprosy Control Unit. The petitioner also has been getting salary from 27.10.1995 onwards. The question, however, for payment of salary for the interregnum period i.e. 1.10.1990 to 26.10.1995 would largely depend on the right that the petitioner had acquired by virtue of his compassionate appointment. 3 As noted above, the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground was made by an incompetent authority on a post which he had no power to make such appointment and if thereafter the petitioner was stopped from working in the period from 1.10.1990 to 26.10.1995, he would not be entitled for payment of salary merely because the authority later on had approved the appointment of the petitioner from 27.10.1995. That being so, the impugned order, based on principle of ‘no work no pay’, does not suffer from any error. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)