IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10145 of 2006 SUREYDEO RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03 22.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By virtue of the order dated 13.02.2006 contained in Anneuxre-1, the petitioner was made to retire from service of Muzaffarpur Nagar Nigam, on reaching the age of 58 years on 31.05.2006. This order retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years had come to be passed even though in March 2005 by way of a notification issued by the State Government and a subsequent amendment to Rule 73, the age of retirement of employees was enhanced to 60 years. The amended Rule 73 has been brought on record as an annexure - 2/1 dated 29.03.2006. In other words, the benefit of extended age of retirement of 60 years had already been made available to various sections of civil services. There were some disputes whether the employees of Nagar Nigam in the State of Bihar will be given the same benefit or not? Some decisions came to be rendered by the Court and even the State Government by way of a subsequent notification clarified that employees of the Nagar Nirgam are also entitled to retire from service after reaching the age of 60 years. Petitioner was put back in service and he was allowed to continue in service till he reached the age of 60 years which - 2 - would be 31.05.2008. But his problem is that he is not being paid his salary for the period when he was out of service after attaining the age of 58 years till he was made to rejoin. Respondents have taken a position that this period should be treated as no work no pay and the petitioner cannot claim benefit of arrears of salary in question. The respondents on their part have relied on a communication issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar dated 25.09.2006, by virtue of which the Muzaffarpur Nagar Nigam has been advised not to pay salary to such employees for the interregnum period that they were retired at 58 years and joined the service to complete 60 years of age. In the opinion of this Court such a stand is in teeth of the basic principle that no work no pay does not come to encompass such a situation. From the facts available on record the benefit of enhanced age of retirement of an employee was made available both by a notification issued by the State Government in March, 2005 followed by a corresponding amendment in Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code on 29th March, 2006. Despite the same the petitioner was made to retire when he reached the age of 58 years. An illegal decision therefore taken by the respondents kept the petitioner from serving the organization for the period when he was retired till he was permitted to rejoin. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner had any role to play in not serving the - 3 - organization or working under them. A misplaced decision prevented the petitioner from carrying on his responsibilities under the respondents till he reached the age of 60 years. The period of retirement at 58 years till he was taken back and thereafter allowed to retire at 60 years of age cannot be treated in any manner either to be a break in service or a case of no work no pay. In the opinion of this Court petitioner has made a case for payment of salary from the day he retired at the age of 58 years in terms of Annexure-1 dated 13.02.2006, till the date he was taken back in service pursuant to the enhanced age of retirement on 27.09.2006. The respondents are therefore, directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the above period. The writ application stands allowed. Sym/ ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)