IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17746 of 2009 1. VIVEKANAND THAKUR S/O LATE GHANANAND THAKUR DEPUTED UPPER GRADE CLERK,TREASURY OFFICE, SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , LABOUR EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR , EMPLOYMENT &TRAINING (EMPLOYMENT) DIRECTORATE,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR SAMASTIPUR 6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER SAMASTIPUR 7. THE B.D.O. PUSA BLOCK, DISTT-SAMASTIPUR ----------- 2. 4.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in a scheme called the unemployment token allowance (Unieyajan Sankatik Bhatta). The scheme came to be wound up. A decision was taken on 20.5.2006 to absorb in Government service those appointed under the scheme. Clause 6 of the scheme states that while such an absorbed person would be entitled to count continuity in service but in between the period when the scheme was wound up and the absorption was done if no work had been taken from him they would not be entitled to wages. The scheme was wound up on 8.4.2005. Consequently his salary was stopped from 1.4.2005. 2 He was then adjusted after absorption on the post of Account Clerk on 2.6.2006 when he joined in Samastipur Collectorate on 15.7.2006 and started to receive his salary from 17.7.2006. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to salary in between 1.4.2005 to 16.7.2006 as the petitioner was denied engagement for no fault of his. He relies upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13166 of 2009. The appointment being under a scheme, it naturally came to an end on expiry of the scheme. The petitioner had no claim even for absorption. A policy decision for absorption rightly stipulated on the principles of ‘no work no pay’ that the time spent in a decision of absorption followed by actual absorption, if work had not been taken, no salary would be paid. That the petitioner may have been willing to work during this period when the matter for absorption was pending is of relevance, in as much as he had no compulsive right to absorption. The petitioner accepted his absorption subject to the conditions contained in the order dated 20.5.2006. Having availed the benefit of the absorption under the said order, he cannot blow hot and cold by accepting the benefit of absorption and yet questioning Clause-6 of the order of absorption 3 denying him salary pending absorption. In C.W.J.C. No. 13166 of 2009, the issue was with regard to posting against a non-vacant post and the consequential claim for salary. The factual foundation was entirely different. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)