IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3811 of 2004 BIDYOTTAMA DEVI Wife of Ramendra Prasad Sinha, resident of Opposite 7/28 Kankarbagh Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Director In Chief, Health Services Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. Superintendent, Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna. 5. Deputy Superintendent, L.H.V. School, Patna City. ----------- 3 28.09.2010 Having heard Mr. Amarnath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 29.3.2003 does not suffer from any infirmity, inasmuch as, the petitioner on being transferred from the post of Public Health Nurse, N.M.C.H. Patna to A.N.M. School, Purnia by order dated 2.6.1998 did not comply the order of transfer till it was modified on 31.12.1999 and had submitted her joining at Arrah as per modified order only on 10.1.2000 and as she would not be entitled for payment of salary for the period she had not worked at any place on the settled principle of ‘no work no pay’. It is also not in doubt that the petitioner after being transferred by the competent authority, namely, the Director-in- Chief of the Health Services on 2.6.1998 had stood relieved from the Nalanda Medical College and Hospital on 19.6.1998 and therefore reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on some noting in the file suggesting some sort of stay of transfer of the petitioner cannot be accepted to be a valid reason for payment 2 of salary to the petitioner for the period she had flouted the order of transfer and did not work at transferred place. It is well settled that any order in the file unless resulted into duly authenticated order in terms of Rules of Executive Business, cannot be acted upon. In the present case it is beyond the dispute that some noting of the Health Commissioner in the file did not lead either to stay or cancellation of the order of transfer of the petitioner dated 2.6.1998. In that view of the matter, when the competent authority had to take a decision as with regard to the period of absence of the petitioner i.e. 23.6.1998 to 9.1.2000 his order to the effect of granting admissible earned leave to the petitioner for the period 23.6.1998 to 1st February, 1999, i.e. 224 days and for treating the remaining period from 2.2.1999 to 9.1.2000 totaling 342 days as extraordinary leave in terms of the Bihar Service Code, does not suffer from any error. It is also well settled that the leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and in fact if a compassionate view was taken by the competent authority by treating part of the period of absence of the petitioner capable of being granted earned leave for which the petitioner would also receive payment of salary, no grievance can be made by her on this score specially when for the remaining period of without pay extraordinary leave has been granted. Had it not been done there could have been break in service disentitling her to even get pensionary payment for the 3 period 25.9.1974 to 9.1.2000 in terms of Rule 10 F of Bihar Pension Rules. Payment of salary is never made to a Government Servant by way of gratis rather it is only the reimbursement of remuneration for the actual work done. Admittedly, when the petitioner had not worked and had flouted the transfer order by remaining unauthorizedly absence for the period almost 1-1/2 years the authority could have terminated her service or could have recorded break in her service, but then if such recourse was not taken and she had been allowed leave as admissible under Bihar Service Code by the impugned order, at least that cannot be interfered with by this Court. That being so, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)