IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13612 of 2010 1. PREM LAL SINGH @ PREM KUMAR VERMA S/O SRI NARAYAN SINGH @ SRI NARAYAN VERMA PERMANENT R/O VILL.- CHANDPUR, P.O.- CHANDPUR, P.S. FALKA, DISTT.- KATIHAR, PRESENTLY ASSISTANT TEACHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, HARIYABHIR, P.S. AND BLOCK KODHA, DISTT.- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR 6. THE TREASURY OFFICER, KATIHAR 7. THE AREA EDUCATION OFFICER, BARARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KODHA, DISTT.- KATIHAR 9. THE TREASURY OFFICER, KATIHAR ----------- 02. 13.4.2011 Some facts are not disputed which emerge from the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present writ application. The order in question is the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar, dated 13.2.2010. The background to the passing of the said order is that the petitioner was charged under sections 147, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was ultimately convicted on 18.9.2004 for a period of 10 years. Obviously his conviction led to passing of an order of dismissal. Thereafter petitioner came to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt by the High Court in the appeal filed by him. Acquittal would surely entitle the petitioner 2 for reinstatement in service because acquittal would mean that his innocence to that extent would be presumed and relate back to the period when he came to be dismissed due to the order of conviction passed against him. But on reinstatement the District Superintendent of Education has recorded that the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit except the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and for the period concerned he would not be entitled to salary on the basis of ‘no work no pay’ but his period of suspension or dismissal would not be treated to be break in service. Petitioner wants interference of this Court on the second punishment of ‘no work no pay’ with regard to payment of salary. If the petitioner stood dismissed because of his conviction, it is not in dispute that he has not worked during the period he was in judicial custody and then there could not be an occasion to interfere with the order with regard to payment of salary. The law in this regard has already been laid down by the Supreme Court years ago. Petitioner cannot claim the benefit of salary in the facts and circumstances noted in the earlier part of the order. No direction can be given in his favour for payment of salary. To that extent Annexure-13 is based on sound principle and on the existing circumstance which was creation of the petitioner. 3 Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)