IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6167 of 2006 1. Anil Kumar Singh, Son of Nathuni Singh, Resident of Village Krishnapur, P.S. Nokha, District Rohtas. 2. Md. Kalim Ansari, son of Abdul Aziz Ansari, Resident of Village Titai Bigha, P.S. Pawai, District Aurangabad. 3. Bharat Prasad, Son of Baikunth Bihari Singh, Resident of Village Chattona, P.S. Nokha, District Rohtas. 4. Dipak Kumar Pathak, Son of Binod Kumar Pathak, Resident of village Suggi, P.S. Hantarganj, District Chatra. 5. Md. Barkat Hussain, Son of Md. Narimuddin, Resident of Village Sheorajpur, P.S. Nabinagar, District Aurangabad. 6. Md. Firoj, Son of Azim kamar, Resident of Village Haspura, P.S. Haspura, District Aurangabad. ----------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Health Department, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Director-in-chief, Health Services, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, District Aurangabad. 5. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, District Aurangabad. 6. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Sadar Block, Aurangabad. 7. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Baroon, District Aurangabad. 8. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre-Haspura, District Aurangabad. --------- Respondents ----------- 4 13.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That though instant writ application the petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ direction(s) /Order(s) directing and commanding the respondents to pay the salary to 2 the petitioners for the period from 11.12.04 to 6.7.05 despite discharging their duties which has not been paid despite necessary orders of respondent concerned without assigning any valid reason and/or for issuance of any other writ(S)/directing(S)/order(s) for which the petitioners may be found legally entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.” Counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the petitioners were selected by Bihar Public Service Commission and they were allotted the district of Aurangabad after appointment and the Civil Surgeon also had issued appointment letter as also accepted their joining on 11.12.2004, his subsequent decision by putting the petitioners on hold would not bind the petitioners, inasmuch as, their joining report, having been accepted and work taken from them, they would be entitled for payment of their salary for the period 11.12.2004 to 6.7.2005. Counsel for the State, with the help of the counter affidavit, however, would submit that the Civil Surgeon of the district was under constrain, inasmuch as, on account 3 of notifying of the election and Model Code of Conduct as also lack of the roaster clearance, had found it difficult to allow the petitioners to continue to work and that is how on 1.1.2005, an order was issued staying the work of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners, in reply, would submit that as a matter of fact, the oral instruction of the Civil Surgeon was that the petitioners should continue to work but they should not put their signature on the attendance register because that may create problem for him on account of violation of model Code of Conduct. As would be apparent, the dispute in this case is only with regard to admissibility of salary for the period in question in which the petitioners’ functioning was sought to be interrupted on account of either election program or lack of roaster clearance. The fact that the petitioners have, thereafter, continued in service and have received payment would go to show that there is no flaw in their appointment. The petitioners, in fact, have 4 been recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission and therefore, if the petitioners have also worked in the period, in question, nothing would come in their way from getting their payment of salary for the actual work done. This Court, however, would find that the Civil Surgeon may have some embarrassment in deciding such issue, inasmuch as, it is said that he has passed some oral order for overcoming the model Code of Conduct during election. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Director-in-chief of the Health Services to look into the grievance of the petitioners and if the petitioners would file their individual representation enclosing not only the copy of this order but also documents showing proof of their working, the said authority, after having obtained comments from the Civil Surgeon and/or authority under whom the petitioners had worked in the said period, would take final decision with regard to the payment of their salary. Such an exercise, however, must be completed within a period of 5 four moths from the date of filing of their representation by the petitioners. Let it be made clear that this Court has not expressed any final opinion with regard to the case and claim of the petitioners and the same has to be decided by the Director-in-chief strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)