IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8888 of 1997 DR. SHARDA CHARAN ROY, S/O LATE SATYA NARAIN ROY, R/O VILLAGE & P.S. BRAHAMPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR AT PRESENT RESIDING AT D/38/12-18 GANDHI NAGAR, P.S. SINGRA, VARANASI IN U.P. …………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF BIHAR, HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION & F.W. DEPT., NEW SECRETARIATE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF BIHAR, HEALTH MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIATE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH DIRECTORATE, NEW SECRETARIATE, BIHAR, PATNA. 5.THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, RANCHI. ………………….RESPONDENTS. ----------- 06/ 12.07.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The following prayer of the petitioner in this writ application:- “That through this application petitioner seeks leave to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction for quashing that part of the order of Govt. as contained in Memo no. 12(3) dated 09.01.1997 at Annexure-11 issued under the signature of Additional Secretary to Govt., Respondent no.3 by which payment of salary to petitioner for the period 03.06.1985 to 13.12.1989 has been denied on the alleged ground of unauthorized absence from duty which is neither true nor supported by any documentary evidence and by the said order the above period is ordered to be treated as break in service which means the said period will not be counted even for the purpose of pensionary benefit as well and further direction to grant first and second time bound promotion to the petitioner which was not granted during service period.” 2 stands duly answered in paragraph no. 6 to 9 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- “ That with regard to the statements made in paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition under reply it is state that it is incorrect. There is no record stating application of extension of Ex-Ind leave by petitioner nor the same has been authentically substantiated by the petitioner. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition under reply it is stated that as the petitioner returned much later than the period of sanctioned leave, the extra time period was fit for disciplinary action and the time elapsed was in procedural nature only. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph no, 8 of the writ petition under reply it is stated that the said letter no. 69(3) dated 15.01.1981 is clearly in accordance with the executive rules for the unauthorized absence of the petitioner. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph no. 12 of the writ petition under reply it is stated that it is matter of record. The petitioner should have joined on 24.11.1987 itself as he was having no charge on the date hence transitory period was not applicable to him. It shows that he deliberately disobeyed the govt. order in his own interest only.” Despite service of copy of the aforementioned counter affidavit to the counsel for the petitioner, no rejoinder has been filed controverting the aforementioned facts asserted in the counter affidavit. It would thus become clear that the petitioner was absent from duty by way of unauthorized leave and therefore, 3 would not be entitled for payment of salary on the principle of no work no pay. This Court would, accordingly, find no error in the impugned order dated 09.01.1997 declining the payment of salary to the petitioner for the period in question i.e from 03.06.1985 to 13.12.1989. This application is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)