IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8409 of 2006 DR.ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, son of late Nand Kishore Singh, resident of village- Jahana, P O. Bhanail, P S. Akabarpur, District- Nawadah, at present posted as Medical Officer, Civil Surgeon Office, hazipur, Vaishali. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Dept. Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Civil Surgeon, Vaishali at Hazipur. 6. The Under Secretary, Finance Department, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Raod, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 13.08.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “a) For quashing the letter vide memo no. 1208(2)/Health, Patna dated 2.6.2006 addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar through Finance Department by the Deputy Secretary, Health Department, whereby and whereunder period from 30.11.98 to 28.10.2001 (complete period without charge) has been regularized extraordinary leave (without pay) (annexure-14 to this petition). b). For issuance of an appropriate writ directing commanding the respondents 2 to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner due from 30.11.1998 to 28.10.2001 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which has not been paid by the respondents without any rhyme and reason.” Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the impugned order passed by the State Government the petitioner has been rightly granted extraordinary leave for the period 30.11.1998 to 28.10.2001 but the same should not have been made without pay. The answer of the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner lies in the impugned order itself where it has been clearly shown that the petitioner did not work for a single day in the aforementioned period and was always eager to get choice posting at his desired place and therefore he was by way of grace, granted extraordinary leave as no other leave was admissible to him. That being so, if the petitioner has not worked, he would not be entitled for payment of salary and in fact respondents have been quite considerate in at least granting him extraordinary leave so that there would be no break in his service. 3 With the aforementioned observation, this writ petition is dismissed. kanchan/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)