IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.362 of 2011 Indradeo Singh, son of Late Hazari Singh, resident of village Alawalpur, P.S.Kurtha in the District of Arwal Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar,Patna. 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Magadh Division,Gaya. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Jehanabad. 5. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Arwal 6. The In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kurtha in the district of Arwal. Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr.Sunil Kumar,Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Ashok Kumar Pathak, A.C.to GP XI. ---------- 03 06.07.2011 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar for appellant, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Pathak, Assistant Counsel to G.P.XI for the respondents. 2. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No.14828 of 2009 (Indradeo Singh Vrs. The State of Bihar and ors.), and raises a grievance with respect to order dated 4.1.2011 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed with costs, and his claim for arrears of salary consequent upon restoration of his services has been rejected. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The petitioner claims to have been appointed on a class IV post. His services were dispensed with on the ground that he had 2 been so appointed without following the prescribed procedure for selection. He challenged the same by preferring CWJC No. 4702 of 2003, which was allowed by a single Judge of this Court by order dated 8.9.2003, whereby the order of termination was set aside with the further observation that the petitioners therein will not get their salary or remuneration for the period they have not actually worked i.e. the period of termination. The petitioner was duly reinstated but was not paid his salary for the period of termination leading to the present writ petition bearing CWJC No.14828 of 2009, which has been dismissed by the aforesaid order dated 4.1.2011, on the ground that the authorities have rightly understood the judgment dated 8.9.2003, passed in CWJC No.4702 of 2003, that the petitioner shall not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period of termination. 4. While assailing the validity of the learned single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the interim order dated 6.8.2003, passed in CWJC No.7220 of 2003 (Indradeo Singh Vrs. The State of Bihar and ors.), whereby the order of termination was stayed during the pendency of the writ petition. The final judgment dated 8.9.2003, whereby the said CWJC No.7220 of 2003, along with analogous 3 writ petitions have been allowed. In other words, it is submitted, the learned single Judge has failed to appreciate the combined effect of the stay order dated 6.8.2003, and the judgment dated 8.9.2003 passed in CWJC No.7220 of 2003. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel to the parties,that the service of the petitioner was dispensed with on the ground that the prescribed procedure for the selection process was not followed, leading to termination of his service. However, CWJC No.7220 of 2003, challenging the same, was allowed, the order of termination was set aside, and he was directed to be reinstated in service without payment of arrears of salary for the period of termination. 7. It appears to us on perusal of the interim order dated 6.8.2003, and the final judgment dated 8.9.2003, both passed in CWJC No.7220 of 2003, that the learned Single Judge has rightly construed that the appellant shall not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period of termination, notwithstanding the writ petition has been pursuing this matter after such long lapse of 4 time. We entirely agree with the order of the learned Single Judge declining to grant arrears of salary to the appellant who has been erroneously claiming it for the period during which the order of termination subsisted, on the strength of the interim order passed on 6.8.2003. The final judgment disposing of the writ petition will really govern the matter which does not grant to him the benefit of arrears of salary. 8. The appeal is dismissed with costs quantified as Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only which the State Government shall deduct from the appellant’s salary. psc (S.K.Katriar, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)