IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1551 of 2009 Md.Yakoob . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2/ 01/07/2011 I.A. No.4289/11 is stated to have been filed on 30.6.2011 by the heirs of the original petitioner stated to have been deceased on 12.2.2009. The I.A. is not on record and the office shall place it on record. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the claims, if allowed, has financial implications for the family of the deceased, the I.A. application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was convicted on 26.7.1990 in a criminal case. On account of that conviction, he was terminated the very same day. Ultimately, in a criminal appeal he was acquitted by the Supreme Court on 21.4.2004. He requested for reinstatement on 8.4.2005 and on 12.4.2005 his joining was accepted. The contention therefore is that after his acquittal in the criminal trial the very foundation of termination vanishes as there was no other ground. The family of the deceased is therefore entitled to salary for the period that the deceased was in custody on account of the criminal case, and also for the period that he was kept away from the work on account of the conviction, 2 ultimately set aside in appeal. Learned counsel for the State submits that applying the principle of “No work, no pay” when the petitioner on account of custody could not work and for reason of his conviction likewise stood terminated, the question of any claim to work or right to claim to work did not arise. He is not entitled to salary. Reinstatement after acquittal prospectively is an entirely different matter. The Court upholds the submission on behalf of the State. The petitioner is not entitled to any arrears of wages of the deceased for the period that he was in custody or was kept away from work in pursuance of the conviction. Considering the question it was held in 2005 (8) SCC 747 (Baldev Singh v. Union of India): at para-7 as follows:- “7. As the factual position noted clearly indicates, the appellant was not in actual service for the period he was in custody. Merely because there has been an acquittal does not automatically entitle him to get salary for the period concerned. This is more so, on the logic of no work no pay. It is to be noted that the appellant was terminated from service because of the conviction. Effect of the same does not get diluted because of subsequent acquittal for the purpose of counting service. The aforesaid position was clearly stated in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Supdt. Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board.” The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)