IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.761 of 2010 ***** Satendra Kumar, S/o Rajendra Prasad, resident of village + P.O.-Nadaul, District- Patna. …. …. (Petitioner)-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Law Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District and Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. …. …. Respondents-Respondents ----------- 2. 23.4.2010. I.A. No. 4025 of 2010: - This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in preferring the appeal. We have heard Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of delay. Before adverting to the issue of notice on the question of limitation, we have thought it necessitous to advert to the merits of the case. The appellant has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15923 of 2009 claiming arrears of salary from 4.2.1999 to 2.4.2002 on the basis of an order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4477-4478/1999. Their Lordships in the final analysis have expressed thus: - “We find force in the contentions made on behalf - 2 - of appellants and contesting respondents that the High Court has not examined their contentions at all. Therefore, we set aside the order made by the High Court and remit the matters for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of what we have stated above. We have not adverted to or relying on any of the documents that have been filed in these proceedings to reach this conclusion. All contentions are left open to be considered by the High Court. Status-quo as to appointments of appellants shall be maintained until final disposal of the matters by the High Court. The appeals are allowed accordingly.” It is urged by Mr. Singh that when an order of status-quo was passed they are entitled to salary. It is worth noting, on a query being made whether the appellant has actually worked, Mr. Singh, we must say, fairly stated that they had not worked, as by that time they were already dismissed. Thus, in view of above, we are disposed to think that the appellant could not have been reinstated or granted salary for the said period. Thus, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the appeal. In view of the aforesaid there is no need to issue - 3 - notice on the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and, accordingly, the said applications stands rejected and as a natural corollary the appeal also stands dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)