IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5665 of 2004 1. RAJ KUMAR RAM son of late Ram Jatan Ram, resident of Mohalla – Chhotaki Nawadah, P.O. R.S. Gaya, P.S. Delha, District – Gaya. 2. Shambhu Prasad son of late Nathuni Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Bara Pathar, At & P.O. Dehri-on-Sone, District – Rohtas; At present – Orderly Peon, Office of BdO, Karakat, At & P.O. Gorari, District – Rohtas. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, At & P.O. Sasaram, Distt. Rohtas. 3. The Civil Surgeon cum CMO, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4. The B.D.O., Karakat, At & P.O. Gorari, Distt. Rohtas. ----------- 04. 23.7.2010 Petitioners are seeking parity with so-called similarly placed employee in matter of release of salary for the so-called non- working period i.e. 12.10.1987 to 5.1.2000 as the termination was said to be illegal. Since large number of persons were terminated on the ground of illegal appointment by the then Civil Surgeon, those issue traveled to the High Court. The High Court in some of the orders which have been brought on record disposed of the writ applications giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the authorities who were given freedom to enquire about the validity or authenticity of such appointments. In some cases, some of those persons were reinstated and they approached the High Court and therefore direction for payment of their salary has also been given. In the case of present petitioners, it is not a case of reinstatement rather it is a case of reappointment. If the petitioners have been reappointed, it was never challenged and thus, there is no question of salary for the period they have claimed in the writ application. There 2 is a marked distinction between reinstatement and reappointment. The writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)