IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8581 of 2006 DR.INDRAJEET PRASAD SINHA son of Late Ramanand Prasad Sinha, at present resident of Raj Clinic, Patna Ranchi Road Biharsharif, District- Nalanda. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. the Addl. Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Director in Chief, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Public Health Institute, Government of Bihar, Patna-4. 6. Incharge Medical Officer, Field Demonstration Centre, Rajgir. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 13.08.2010 Heard Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The following prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition; “1. That this writ application is directed against the order dated 22.8.2003 passed by the respondent Commissioner and Secretary, respondent no. 1, whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 1 has been pleased to negate the claim of the petitioner for grant of salary during the posting at Field Demonstration Centre Rajgir (hereinafter referred to as FDC) and illegally treated the said period as lave without pay, contrary to the facts and circumstances and records of the department. This application is also 2 being filed for commanding the respondents to release the petitioner salary during his last posting at FDC Rajgir upto 8.9.2003. This application is also being filed for other reliefs as well.” in fact is exclusively dependent on the correctness of the impugned order dated 22.8.2003 which was actually passed by the authority in terms of certain observation and direction given by this Court in the earlier round of litigation on the same cause of action, being CWJC No. 4522 of 2003 disposed of on 22.5.2003. In the impugned order, the authority has rejected the claim for payment of salary of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty in the aforementioned period. The authority in this respect has not only looked into the records of the concerned place where the petitioner claims to have posted and submitted his joining but also having obtained report from the concerned Medical Officer of Rajgir had come to a categorical finding that there was no document to show that the petitioner had ever assumed the charge of the post or had discharged his 3 duties in this period. He had for this purpose not only looked into the absentee statement but had also examined other connected documents. Such finding of fact with regard to the actual working of the petitioner which could have made him disentitled for payment of salary was capable of being controverted by the petitioner only on the basis of documentary evidence showing his actual working. No such evidence was however placed by the petitioner either before the Commissioner or before the Secretary of the Health Department. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that there would be a presumption of the petitioner continuing at Rajgir because there was no order showing the petitioner to be absent from the duty has to be only noted for its being rejected. A person in order to get the salary has to do his duty of the assigned post as can be supported from records and in absence thereof the principle of no work no pay has to be only applied. This Court, therefore, would not find any error in the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary. The petitioner had retired in the year 2004 and has been paid all his retirement benefit 4 and therefore this writ petition only with regard to arrears of salary for the period which he could not establish his claim of working is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)