IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.4239 OF 2007 PRADEEP KUMAR KARN,AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE RAM KRISHNA LAL DAS, R/O RAGHOPUR, BALAT (GOSSAIN TOLA), P.S. RAJ NAGAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF HEALTH SERVICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT PATNA. 2.THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MADHUBANI, NORTH BIHAR. 3.THE INCHARGE, ADDL. PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, SINGIYAN, KAITHA RAJ NAGAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI, NORTH BIHAR. 4.THE INCHARGE ADDL. PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, DHASH SISHWA PANDAUL, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 17.08.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that Mr. Chakraborty learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset would has given up the claim for payment of salary of the petitioner for the period from 06.02.2003 to 30.06.2005, this Court would be required to now only go into the rest of claim of the payment of salary to the petitioner i.e. for the period from July-1995 to July- 1996 and September-1997 to June-2000 only. As with regard to the aforementioned period learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there can be no dispute that the petitioner’s initial 2 appointment was made on 27.09.1989 and he had continued in service till 30.06.2000 before being terminated from service on the ground of his appointment being illegal. He would therefore, submit that the petitioner would be entitled for payment of salary for the period from July-1995 to July-1996 and September-1997 to June-2000 especially when such termination order of the petitioner had also been quashed by this Court by judgment dated 08.09.2003. He has further submitted that when the division bench in the appeal filed the State of Bihar had remitted the matter for holding an inquiry by five man committee in terms of the direction given by Division Bench in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Purendra Sulan Kit reported in 2006(3)PLJR 386, the State Government itself had regularized the services of the petitioner by an order dated 20.09.2007 and as such the petitioner cannot be denied payment of salary for an earlier period. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts. he has however submitted that the petitioner’s 3 working and payment of salary can only be considered on the post of Voluntary Health Worker and not on the post of a Clerk, inasmuch as, the district level Committee had found the petitioner’s engagement on the post of Clerk to be wholly vitiated, wherein, his appointment was said to be made even before the date of interview. This Court in the changed scenario will not go into the question of legality or illegality in the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Clerk but then as it is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s initial appointment on the post of Voluntary Health Worker had continued till the date of his termination from service on 30.06.2000, the petitioner would be entitled for payment of such salary for the period from July-1995 to July-1996 and September-1997 to June-2000 in the pay scale of Voluntary Health Worker till the Government would decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of his salary in the pay scale of Clerk. The submission of Mr. Chakraborty, that since the Government order dated 4 20.09.2007 regularizing the services of the petitioner on the post of Clerk has already clinched this issue, there should be no difficulty in making the payment of salary to the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, however cannot be accepted inasmuch as, the said order also talks of no work no pay for the period in which the petitioner had remained out of service. The question therefore, as to whether the order of regularization dated 20.09.2007 would also clinch the initial infirmity and/or inherent defect in the appointment/promotion of the petitioner from the post of Voluntary Health Worker to the post of Clerk will always have to be decided by the Government in the light of the materials on record and till it is done so, the petitioner’s entitlement of salary can be only against the post of Voluntary Health Worker held by him. In that view of the matter, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner of the post of voluntary health worker for the period from July-1995 5 to July-1996 and September-1997 to June- 1997. If however in future the Government would also decide to pay salary of the post of Clerk to the petitioner in view of the order of regularization of the services of the petitioner, nothing said in this order shall stand in the way of the petitioner from claiming the payment of salary for the post of Clerk. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)