IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10199 of 2003 VENKATESHWAR ROY, son of late Ramanuj Rai, Assistant Teacher, High School, Dhanchhuhan, P.S. Sahar, District Bhojpur at Arrah (aged about 60 years) … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director, Secondary Education, Budha Marg, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna 4. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah 5. The Sub-divisional Education Officer, South Arrah 6. District Treasury Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah … Respondents ----------- 3. 20.9.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief: “ This is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash memo no. 176 dated 21.2.2000, issued under the signature of the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, whereby and whereunder, he has held that the petitioner has remained unauthorizedly absent for certain period mention therein and further he has remained in custody for certain period and as such his salary be withheld for a period ranging from 5.1.1996 to 3.8.1997 and further for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent authorities to pay 2 salary of the petitioner in the revised scale, with all consequential benefits and/or for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, for which the petitioner may be found legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances stated hereinafter.” this Court on perusal of the impugned order would find that the reasons given therein for denial of payment of salary from 5.1.1996 to 3.8.1997 does not suffer from any infirmity. The payment of salary of the employees is always made for the work done. Here is a clear proof of fact that the petitioner was holding the post of acting Headmaster and when he was transferred and also relieved on 5.1.1996 he did not choose to report for duty in the transferred school. The absence of the petitioner from 5.1.1996 despite dismissal of his writ petition challenging his order of transfer and its affirmance by the Division Bench in L.P.A. had also not been an eye opener to him inasmuch as even thereafter he should have joined in the transferred school. In that view of the matter, when 3 there are also unimpeachable documentary evidence to show that in this very period the petitioner was confined to jail custody also in connection with a criminal case, for the period 18.7.1997 to 21.9.1996, the tall claim of the petitioner for payment of salary must be rejected. Payment of salary to a Government servant is no gratis or JAGIR who has to be paid their salary at any cost even if he would not work in the relevant period. Payment of salary could only be made to the petitioner if he had worked on the post to which he was transferred by the competent authority. In the present case the impugned order clearly gives out compelling reasons for not allowing the payment of salary and such reasons do not suffer from any infirmity. That being so, the claim for payment of salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid period must be and is hereby rejected. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 4