IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12790 of 2011 Krishna Kumar S/O Late Surya Narayan R/O Vill. + P.S.- Pakribarawan, Distt.- Nawadah-----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department Of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Treasury and Account Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Managing Director, the Bihar State Sugar Corporation, Patna 4. The General Manager Bihar State Sugar Corporation, Guraru Sugar Mill At Guraru, P.S.- Guraru, Distt.- Gaya 5. The Treasury Officer, Munger, Distt.- Munger 6. The District Magistrate, Munger--------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. M. K. Sinha, AC to G.A.-10 ---------------------- 2 12.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The long story behind the present litigation can be cut short, looking at the nature of the dispute which has to be decided in the present writ petition. The impugned order is annexure-10 dated 17.7.2010 which has been passed by the respondent authority on the basis of so called representation which the petitioner was permitted to file in terms of the earlier order of learned Single Judge contained in annexure-5. Petitioner was an employee of what is known as Bihar State Sugar Corporation. The Corporation ran into bad days. Many an employees become redundant and, as a matter of policy, the State Government decided to accommodate some of those employees by placing their services under the Finance Department, by posting them as treasury officers across the State. Petitioner is said to be one of those persons whose name did figure in the list. That was way back in the year 1997. However for the reasons best known to the petitioner as 2 well as to the Corporation petitioner was not relieved by the Sugar Corporation to join Ranchi treasury by specified date which was fixed as 14.3.1997. Petitioner reported to Ranchi treasury only in February 1999 and he claims to have given his joining. The authority concerned sought clarification on the acceptance of so called joining from the Finance Department on the issue, taking into consideration that there was delay in reporting of almost two years, by the petitioner. The authority refused to accept the explanation and petitioner was not permitted to join. This led to institution of CWJC No. 5028 of 2000 which came to be decided on 18.4.2008 (annexure- 5). There is no dispute that learned Single Judge taking into consideration the background of the dispute gave a direction upon the respondent authority to accept the joining of the petitioner within a month of the order being produced. This order was upheld by the LPA Bench as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP, which was dismissed in limine. The order of joining was issued in favour of the petitioner which would be evident from annexure-9 annexed to the writ petition. Though this order was passed on 15.4.2010 but the joining of the petitioner was ordered to be accepted w. e. f. 24.6.2008. What is significant however is that learned Single Judge did not give any categorical direction with regard to salary and other benefits for the period prior to the joining. It was left to the petitioner to approach the authority with regard to this claim. The speaking order contained in annexure- 10 is the consequence thereof. 3 Petitioner is back challenging the said order on the ground that petitioner cannot be faulted for his non-joining earlier and that he is entitled for payment of salary and other perks from 24.2.1999 till the year 2008 i.e. till his joining was taken in terms of annexure-9. According to him if learned Single Judge had held that non-joining of the petitioner was for the reasons not attributable to him therefore he had a right to claim payment under the State. He should be entitled to the benefit of salary and other perks. The said submission of the petitioner has already been adjudicated at various levels by the court of law. From the decision of learned Single Judge it is evident that there was no clear and categorical direction or declaration with regard to payment of salary and other benefits which the petitioner could be entitled to under the circumstances of his non-joining. The joining has now been accepted after the direction of learned Single Judge in the year 2008 by virtue of the order passed on 17.7.2010. Naturally in all these years petitioner never worked under the respondents and therefore the principle adopted by the respondent that the claim of the petitioner can be brought within the ambit of principle of “no work no pay” in the given facts and circumstances of the case seems to be correct and reasonable. What has been decided or the reasons given by the respondents in the order of rejection (Annexure-10) cannot be said to be arbitrary or extraneous to what had already been adjudicated by the Court in the earlier round of litigation. Since there was no clear direction on this aspect of the matter and the issue was left to the 4 respondents, the respondents had to decide the issue with regard to entitlement of the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not join the post earlier till the declaration or direction of learned Single Judge was issued and upheld any demand by petitioner now for payment of salary and other benefits prior to the period he had never worked is uncalled for. The reason given in the order of rejection therefore cannot be said to be faulty, erroneous or de horse any principle of law. No interference is therefore required with the impugned order. This writ petitioner is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)