IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11335 of 2010 1. Birender Pandey @ Beena Pandey S/O Late Phoolan Pandey R/O Mohalla- Bhabua Ward No.16, Shakti Nagar, P.S.- Bhabua, Distt.- Kaimur (Bhabua) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabua) 3. Additional Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua) 4. Circle Officer, Block Kudra Distt.- Kaimur (Bhabua) 5. Incharge Officer District People Grievance Cell, Kaimur ---------------------------------- 3. 25.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ petition was filed on 8.7.2010 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General. Despite passage of more than reasonable time no counter affidavit has been filed .The Court does not consider it necessary to adjourn the matter for the purpose any more. The claim in the writ application is for payment of arrears of salary from 7.7.2003 to 13.8.2004. The second prayer is for grant of monetary benefits pursuant to a decision dated 18.6.2005 to grant ACP. The petitioner acknowledges having been subjected to a departmental proceeding for unauthorized absence from 8.7.2003 leading to punishment imposed for denial of three increments and that payment of salary for the period of suspension would be dependant on the outcome of the criminal case lodged against him. The pleadings acknowledge that he is an accused in Bhabua PS Case No. 212 of 2003 (while the judgment of the criminal court mentions 213 of 2003). He was taken into custody and released on 28.7.2004. The petitioner 2 claims salary from 7.7.2003 to 13.8.2004 by reason of the subsequent acquittal in the criminal case. The petitioner is not entitled to any salary for the period that he was in custody on principle of “no work no pay”. The order dated 24.9.2007 of the District Magistrate sought to be relied upon for the purpose is contrary to the well settled law and is not amenable to enforcement by the Court. For the remaining period also he is not entitled if in a departmental proceeding for unauthorized absence he was punished which has not been interfered. In (2005) 8 SCC 747 (Baldev Singh v. Union of India) it was held at para 7 as follows:- 7. As the factual position noted clearly indicates, the appellant was not in actual service for the period he was in custody. Merely because there has been an acquittal does not automatically entitle him to get salary for the period concerned. This is more so, on the logic of no work no pay. It is to be noted that the appellant was terminated from service because of the conviction. Effect of the same does not get diluted because of subsequent acquittal for the purpose of counting service. The aforesaid position was clearly stated in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Supdt. Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board.” It appears from Annexure 4 dated 18.6.2005 that the petitioner has been granted lst ACP. If the order stands valid naturally he is entitled to the monetary benefits of the same which are expected to be paid to him within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed only to the extent indicated above. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)