IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5663 of 2002 SRI KRISHNA PRASAD son of Late Suba Lal Singh resident of village Pitambarpur, P. S. Fatwah, District- Patna. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Primary Education Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Education Officer, Patna. 4. Sri Hari Narayan Prasad Singh, Area Officer, at Bahadurpur Gumti, Patna. ... Respondents. ----------- 5. 16.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows: “(i) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the payment of salaries of the petitioner from July, 2000 to April 2001 and October 2001 to till today.” With regard to the aforementioned prayer counsel for the petitioner would submit that the such salary of the petitioner was withheld without giving any show- cause notice and/or opportunity of hearing. From the counter affidavit in paragraph 5 and 7 reading as follows; “5. That it is desirable to state 2 the brief facts involved in the present case, which is being stated hereinafter and which in turn will go to show that the petitioner is not legally entitled for payment of salary of the entire period i.e. from July, 2000 to April 2001 and from October, 2001 till date, as stated in the present writ application. Out of the aforementioned period, the petitioner is not legally entitled for payment of salary for the period from July, 2000 to November 2000 as school when the petitioner had been posted was found to be closed during inspection and consequently orders stopping payment of salary of all the teaching and non teaching staffs had been issued by the then D.S.e. Patna. For the period thereafter, admittedly the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary and accordingly bank drafts had been sent to him which he refused to accept. Thus there had been no willful latches on the part of the answering deponent. 7. That it is specially submitted that the statements made in para-7 of the writ petition under reply is misleading and suppressed one. In fact on 11.7.2000 the petitioner was already relieved from the office of Range Education Officer, Patna Sadar. The said fact has been suppressed by the petitioner. The intention of the petitioner is to impress upon this Hon’ble Court that the school in question had been inspected on 3.7.2000 found closed which is prior to 11.7.2000 and as such consequential order dated 28.10.2001 whereby payment of salary of all the teaching and non- teaching staffs had been stopped will not be applicable upon him. Whereas the fact is that the school in question was 3 inspected also on 8.8.2000 and on that date the school was found closed and consequently the then D.S.E. Patna vide Memo No. 7221 dated 28.10.2000 ordered for stopping payment of salary to the entire teaching and non teaching staffs of the said school. Payment of salary by virtue of the said order remained stopped uptill November, 2000.” It would appear that the petitioner remained absent and also the school of the petitioner as a whole was found to be closed in course of inspection by the local departmental authorities. If the petitioner, therefore, did not work in the aforementioned period of July 2000 to November 2000 he would be bound by the principle of no work no pay. The plea of the petitioner that in the aforementioned period of July 2000 to November 2000 he was under deputation to the office of Area Education Officer has only to be noted for its being rejected for two reasons; firstly the petitioner has not filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit though a copy of such counter affidavit was served on his counsel way back on 21.11.2002 and secondly, the petitioner is an assistant teacher and his deputation can only be made by his appointing authority, the Superintendent of 4 Education. Counsel for the State would also point out that Annexure- 1 does not support the story of deputation. This Court will not go into this aspect because there is no order of the Prescribed Authority deputing the petitioner in the office of Area Education Officer and the Area Education Officer by himself cannot requisition the service of any teacher to his office. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in that part of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner where the payment of salary for the period July 2000 to November 2000 has been sought to be pressed. Coming to the rest of the grievance, since the respondents themselves admitted entitlement for salary of the petitioner, this Court would direct the respondents that if the salary of the petitioner for the aforementioned period i.e. December 2000 to April 2001 and October 2001 to the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 6.5.2002 has not been paid to him, the same must be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5 With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)