IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9183 of 2003 Bashishta Gupta, son of late Tilangi Sah, Resident of Village Sarsar, P.S. Siwan Muffasil, District Siwan at present is posted as Assistant Teacher Gandhi Smarak High School, Bhorey, P.S. Bhorey, District Gopalganj. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Collector, Gopalganj at and P.S. Gopalganj, District Gopalganj. 3. The District Education Officer at Gopalganj, P.S. Gopalganj, District Gopalganj. 4. Ramdeo Singh, son of not known, Ex Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Gandhi Smarak High School Bhorey, P.s. Bhorey, District Gopalganj at present Headmaster Badri Narain Smarak High School, Korey, P.S. Gopalganj, District Gopalganj. 5. The Headmaster, Gandhi Smarak High School, Bhorey, P.S. Bhorey, District Gopalganj. 6. Bachcha Prasad Singh, son of Ram Sunder Singh, Ex Assistant Teacher Gandhi Smarak High School Bhorey, P.S. Bhorey, District Gopalganj at present posted at High School Sahpur, P.S. Mairwa, District Siwan. 7. Jai Shree Prasad, Son of Muneshwar Prasad, Assistant Teacher Gandhi Smarak High School Bhorey P.S. Bhorey, District Gopalganj. --------- Respondents ----------- 3 13.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as with regard to the following prayer:- “1. That this writ application is directed for issuing writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents concerned to make payment of the salary of the petitioner which is dues since 6.2.1999 to 7.5.1999 for the work done by the petitioner during the period of strike called given by Bihar Secondary School Teachers Association.” it would be difficult for this Court to allow 2 such claim in view of the statement made in paragraph no.3 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- “3. That with regard to the said fact it is humbly stated that the petitioner is an assistant teacher of G.S. High School Bhorey Gopalganj. The strike of the Secondary School teachers was since 5.2.99 to 7.5.99. The petitioner was on strike. In strike period petitioner could not attend School and was not on duty. The petitioner given written petition to D.E.O., Gopalganj about a strike which could not be taken place from 21.1.99. The said strike was not succeeded. This information has no connection at all with the strike of 5.2.99 to 7.5.99. In the mean time from 5.2.99 to 7.5.99 no any copy as letter of information by the petitioner was given to any appropriate authority. It is totally false to say that H.M. refused to accept information of said Gupta to be strike out.” Let it be noted that a copy of the counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 9.8.2005 and there is no denial to the aforesaid specific averments of the Headmaster of the school clearly asserting that the petitioner was not on duty 3 between 5.2.1999 to 7.5.1999. Once this aspect becomes undisputed that the petitioner was absent from duty and that too on the basis of a person who was reporting officer of the petitioner required to submit his absentee statement, this Court will have no option but to hold that the petitioner was absent from duty in the aforesaid period and was thus, not entitled for payment of salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed accordingly. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)