IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14720 of 2009 1. SMT. MANJU KUMARI D/O GOBARDHAN PRASAD VILL.- AJNAURA, P.S.- NOORSARAI IN THE DISTRICT OF NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR IN-CHIEF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON - CUM - CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER JEHANABAD 5. THE IN-CHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KAKO IN THE DISTRICT OF JEHANABAD ----------- 3 04/01/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The Court fails to understand as to how the present petitioner could file writ application for payment of arrear of salary for the period 27.06.2003 to 25.09.2007 in face of clear and categorical finding recorded by the learned Single Judge way back in his decision dated 08.09.2003 which was passed in a batch of writ applications starting with C.W.J.C. No. 4702 of 2003. The issue was termination of the petitioner along with large number of other persons who were working as - 2 - A.N.Ms. In the decision of the learned Single Judge, there is a clear and categorical finding that the reinstatement of the petitioners, however, will not beget them their salary or remuneration for the period they have not actually worked, i.e. the period of termination. In other words the reinstatement was a conditional order and, therefore, the High Court itself by a judicial pronouncement held that none of those persons terminated would be entitled to salary on their reinstatement by virtue of benefit of that order. But despite the said order which came to be affirmed by a Division Bench, the present writ application has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction for payment of arrears of salary for the period 27.06.2003 to 25.09.2007. One of the reasons which has emboldened the petitioner to file the present writ application is a decision rendered in the case of Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C. No. 10727 of 2009) decided on 9.10.2009. In the said case the learned Single Judge has given a direction to consider the case for payment of salary of the petitioner for certain period. It is not evident whether that period includes the period of - 3 - dismissal and whether the facts of that case is squarely covered by the present case but one thing is very clear that in face of the findings already recorded by a learned Single Judge way back on 08.09.2003 which is more than seven years ago, there was no occasion for this petitioner to demand payment of salary for the period she stood dismissed and till she got reinstated by virtue of the judicial order. It is a mischievous kind of writ application which ought to be dismissed not only in limine but also with certain cost. In this regard, a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) is imposed upon the petitioner which should be payable by her to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna within a period of eight weeks from today. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)