IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7140 of 2010 1. RAMESH PRASAD VERMA S/O LATE BISHWANATH PD. VERMA R/O MOHALLA- MANLA BAGH, P.O., P.S.- ARA, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, AT PRESENT PEON, LEPROSY CONTROL UNIT, SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS 2. RAM LAKHAN PRASAD S/O SRI RAMJEE PRASAD AT PRESENT R/O VILL.- DARIAPUR, P.O. & P.S. PALIGANJ, DISTT.- ROHTAS, ORDERLY PEON, ADDL. C.M.O., ROHTAS (SASARAM) 3. LAKSHAMAN LAL S/O SRI MUKTESHWAR LALL R/O VILL.- MANGRAON, P.O. SANGRAON, P.S. HATUA, RAJPUR, DISTT.- BUXAR, AT PRESENT WARD ATTENDANT, ADDL. P.H.C. BHANAN, DISTT.- ROHTAS 4. SURESH KUMAR S/O LATE BANSHI GOSAI R/O MOHALLA- COMPANY SARAI ROUZA ROAD, AT P.O. AND P.S.- SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS, AT PRESENT CLEANER OFFICE OF DISTT.- MAN MEDIA OFFICER, & OTHERS AT SASARAM Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CMO, ROHTAS, SASARAM 3. THE ADDL. CMO ROHTAS, SASARAM 4. THE DISTRICT LEPROSY OFFICE ROHTAS AT SASARAM 5. THE MEDICAL OFFICER I/C PHC DINARA, ROHTAS ----------- 02. 20.1.2011 It is a long drawn story before institution of the present writ application. There have been many round of litigations and writ petitions filed when petitioners along with other similarly situated came to be terminated on the ground that the so-called daily wagers were illegally appointed. The litigation originated some time in the year 1990 where various orders came to be passed, based on which enquiries were held and some of the persons were ordered to be taken back in service. Then came the issue of payment of salary to these persons even for the period they were terminated because according to them, since the Court had reinstated them or their initial engagement not being totally illegal, they are entitled to payment of salary for the period between 12.10.1987 to 8.4.1994 or even 28.3.1993 as the case may be. 2 Annexures 1 to 4 are the orders of rejection passed by the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram where he has held and recorded that since the petitioners had not worked for the period in question there is no question of their being entitled for payment of salary for that period. Admittedly this is the period when the petitioners had been terminated from service. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that in similar circumstance one Gauri Shankar Ram, who was petitioner in CWJC No. 13126 of 2003 came to beget benefit of payment as would be evident from the order contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application. In that view of the matter petitioners ought to be treated at par with the said Gauri Shankar Ram. Before any analogy can be drawn from the position of Gauri Shakar Ram there is yet another order of the High Court which has relevance to the issue. It is the case of one Md. Sahamat and others, which came to be decided on 7.8.1998 in CWJC No. 11377 of 1997. A significant finding of the learned single Judge is in para 8 which is reproduced hereinbelow: “I, therefore, allow this writ application with a direction to the authorities to make payment to the petitioners for the period in question provided on scrutiny of papers, it is found that the petitioners have worked for the period in question.” This decision was used by the said Gauri Shankar Ram in his writ application and wherein direction for consideration of payment was ordered to be issued on due scrutiny of the genuineness of 3 Annexure-10. The learned single Judge while recording the order dated 9.4.2004 in CWJC No. 13126 of 2003 omitted to notice the observation of the earlier learned single Judge specially para 8 which has been reproduced above. If the earlier decision came to be the foundation for the subsequent decision, then observation made in para 8 cannot be overlooked. The Court therefore does not want to comment on the correctness of Annexure-13 as such but so far as claim of these petitioners is concerned, they are not entitled to anything more or better than what was recorded by the learned single Judge in para 8 of his decision. If the speaking orders which are impugned in the present writ application are read in the background of what has been noted above, then this Court does not find any illegality or irrationality in the reasons given for rejection of the claim of these petitioners. In the totality therefore, there is no occasion for giving a direction for payment of salary to the petitioners for the period they had not worked. There is no merit in the writ application. It is dismissed accordingly. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)