IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19424 of 2010 Mohiuddin son of late Shah Ataul Hakeen, resident of village- Dih Koari, P.S. Pusa Road, District- Samastipur, Assistant Teacher of Madarsa Islamiya at Shahpur- Bhagauni, District- Samastipur…….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Budh Marg, Patna. 2. The Special Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Budh Marg, Patna. 3. The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Budh Marg, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Budh Marg, Patna. 5. The District Education Officer, Samastipur. 6. Sohail Ahmad Secretary of Managing Committee of Madarsa Islamiya Sahpur, Bhagauni, Via- Waini, District- Samastipur. 7. The Principal, Madarsa Islamiya Sahapur, Bhagaunia via- Waini, District- Samastipur. 8. Md. Umair son of Md. Ekram, residnent of Mohalla,Shahpur, Bhagauni, via-Waimi, District- Samastipur….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, Advocate Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For Madarsa Board: Mr.Md. Rashid, Advocate Mr. Mahtab Alam, Advocate For the State: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, A.C. to AAG-6 -------- 2. 4.7.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph No.14 of the writ petition by deleting the word “not” mentioned therein in the course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and Bihar State Madarsa Education Board. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to 2 make payment of salary for the period from 5.6.1998 to 3.10.2010. This is the second round of litigation of the petitioner. Earlier, he had approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.3704 of 2004 with the same relief for arrears of salary pursuant to the order dated 24.6.2002 passed by the Special Director, Secondary Education. In the said writ petition, this Court while rejecting the plea of the petitioner held as follows: “The law stands settled that where an order is set aside on technicalities for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice unless the order so specifically directs it does not consequentially and automatically result in reinstatement, especially when orders have been passed for proceeding afresh in accordance with law. In the present case, though there is a direction that respondent No.5 shall continue to work, the fact of the matter, not in dispute before this Court during 3 the present hearing, is that respondent no.5 has not been reinstated in pursuance of the order. This Court, therefore, finds it difficult to grant him any relief in C.W.J.C. No.3704 of 2004 on the principle of “no work no pay” when the matter shall finally abide by the fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law. In so far as the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.7455 of 2003 is concerned, he is stated to be the person appointed consequent to the termination of respondent no.5 and whose appeal came to be allowed by Appeal No.10 of 2000. If this Court did not find substance in the plea of respondent no.5 for arrears of his salary in CWJC No.8184 of 2002 on the principle of “no work no pay”, conversely the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.7455 of 2003 appointed in place of respondent no.5 and has worked as such, 4 he shall be entitled for his salary for the period that he worked and the matter is left open to be factually examined by the concerned respondents more particularly when the appellate order restrains payment of salary to him ex parte without impleading him as a party in Appeal No.10/2000 much less hearing him, within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a coy of this order.” Reference has been made to the present petitioner, who was respondent No.5 in the analogous case being C.W.J.C No.8184 of 2002. Ultimately, by order dated 3.10.2010, it has been held by the Madarasa Islamia, Shahpur Baghauni that it is a fit case of dismissal. It is, thus, evident that in terms of the earlier decision of this Court, which has acquired finality and it had clearly held that the matter shall finally abide by the fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law, the petitioner is not entitled to any salary for the period from 5.6.1998 to 3.10.2010 when he was dismissed from service with effect from 5 6.6.1998 by a fresh order dated 3.10.2010 passed by the Secretary, Madarsa Islamia Shahpur Baghauni, Samastipur. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )