IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.945 of 2008 ---- Chuman Prasad Shrivastava @ Chuman Lal, S/o Shri Udai Lal, R/o Village-Atani, P.S.Nawanagar, District-Bhojpur (Now Buxar). … Appellant/ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Director-in-Chief Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, District-Rohtas. … Respondents/ Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr.Diwakar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Junior counsel to Standing Counsel XI -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 02nd December, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of thirty days for which an application for condonation of delay (I.A.No.7099/2008) has been made. Even if, we condone the delay in filing the appeal, in our considered view, the appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that to the similarly situated employee, for the intervening period, the payment of wages has been made and, therefore, the Single Judge was - 2 - not justified in dismissing the writ petition. 3. We are afraid, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to notice that the petitioner approached this court earlier in writ petition being CWJC No.8002 /1990 wherein this court in unequivocal terms held that in exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, no order in regard to the payment of salary during the period of intervening period can be passed. The claim of salary for intervening period having already been rejected in earlier writ petition, the same cannot be allowed to be re -agitated merely because to the other employees the salary has been paid for the intervening period. 4. Dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge does not suffer from any legal flaw. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. This disposes of I.A.No.7099/2008 as well. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil