IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14977 of 2006 RADHA KUMARI, wife of Sri Rajdev Rai, resident of village and post office Ghoghardiha, police Station Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, District- Madhubani. 4. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary health Centre, Ghoghardiha , Police Station- Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 20.08.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1(i). A mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to make payment of arrears of salary from September 1998 to February, 1999 and from January 2000 to till date for the post of IVth Grade employee and other admitted dues.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned prayer would submit that when the petitioner was appointed by an appointment letter dated 31.12.1988 (Annexure-1) and had also worked thereafter, she would be entitled for payment of salary for the period in question as prayed in this writ application. In this 2 context, counsel for the petitioner has not only referred to repeated representations of the petitioner but also to an order of this Court dated 18.8.2006 in CWJC No. 6466 of 2001(Sunita Kumari & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents wherein the very appointment letter of the petitioner has been claimed to be forged. In this context in paragraph nos. 7 to 9 of the said counter affidavit reads as follows:- “7. That it is stated that it is pertinent to mention here that appointment letter bearing memo no. 2332 dated 31.12.88 shows the signature of Sr. B. N. Tatarway, but he was relieved from Madhubani district on 31.8.88, so it clearly shows that appointment letter is itself forged and fake. 8). That it is stated that it is pertinent to mention here that Sri Prem Prakash Nair the then Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar had laid down the principles and guidelines for appointment on the post of 4th grade employee vide his memo no. 10441 dated 3.12.80 in which it is clearly stated that all the appointment on 4th grade post a district Panel will be constructed under the control of district Magistrate. District Magistrate concerned will recommend the name from district panel for appointment of 4th grade employee in various department. 9). That it is further stated and submitted that on consideration of aforesaid facts and Chief Secretary Govt. 3 of Bihar directed all the commissioners to enquire into the matter of illegal appointment made in different Muffasil office of the Health department. The subject matter of the enquiry was appointment made after 1.1.80 and onwards. During the course of investigation and enquiry its was detected that petitioner and other were working on forged and fabricated appointment letters and thereafter an enquiry was made and the then in charge medical officer, primary health centre was directed to send service records of the persons working under them. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to her but to the utter surprise She had not furnished satisfactory answer. It is also remarkable that the name of the petitioner was not comes through district panel and district magistrate had not recommended her name for the appointment on the post of 4th grade employee. Petitioner letter was not issued from the undersigned office. On enquiry and investigation it was revealed that she was appointed on forge and fabricated appointment letter. Hence her service was terminated vide the then Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani Memo No. 2494 dated 30.10.2001.” In the opinion of this Court, when the very appointment order of the petitioner was forged and claimed to have been issued by an officer who had already been relieved from Madhubani on 31.8.1988 the alleged order of appointment of the petitioner dated 4 31.12.1988 said to have been issued by him would lead a natural presumption that such appointment letter was a forged letter. In this context, the plea of the respondents that the services of the petitioner were actually terminated on the ground of her appointment based on forged and fabricated letter of appointment vide a separate Office Memo No.2494 dated 30.10.2001 would virtually seal the matter inasmuch as the petitioner’s services were never recognized for the purpose of benefit of salary. The very fact that the services of the petitioner were based on a forged letter of her appointment and that in the case of Sunita Kumari (supra) no such plea was taken rather the order of this court in her case (Annexure- 3) would go to show that she was still continuing as on 18.8.2006 whereas the service of the petitioner has been terminated on 30.10.2001 would automatically make her case totally distinguishable on facts and the order passed by this Court in the case of Sunita Kumari(supra) cannot be used a precedent by the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents therefore have rightly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the 5 case of State of Bihar vs. Md. Ashif, reported in 2003(2) PLJR 27 (S.C.) and of this court in the case of Radha Kumari vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2002(3) PLJR 794 wherein law has been laid down that a forged or void appointment cannot confer any right on an incumbent for claiming payment of salary. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)