IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11210 of 2007 PREM PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate Mr. Shubhankar Sharma, Advocate ----------- 5 13.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A categorical affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has been reinstated in service because the age of retirement of employees of D.R.D.A. at Samastipur, came to be enhanced to 60 years. In that view of the matter, the present writ application has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that he has no information whether the petitioner has been paid his salary for the period when he was removed and the period when he was reinstated. It is clarified that removal of petitioner on reaching the age of 58 years was an illegal decision and the petitioner was prevented from working for some period after his superannuation at the age of 58 years. On reinstatement subsequently he shall be entitled to his salary etc. for this period as well. It is clarified that principle of no work no pay may not be applicable in the given situation. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observation. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)