IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5947 of 2010 1. ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY S/O SRI SATRUGHAN PANDEY R/O GOGRI BRAHMIN TOLA, P.S.GOGRI, DISTT-KHAGARIA----PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER -CUM-SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION DISTT-KHAGARIA 3. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER GOGRI BLOCK, DISTT- KHAGARIA 4. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ GOGRI, DISTT-KHAGARIA 5. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ GOGRI, DISTT- KHAGARIA 6. MEMBER, ZILA SHIKSHAK NIYOJAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY KHAGARIA------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 7.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Court is not convinced that the findings made by the appellate authority in the order impugned can be challenged by the petitioner by making out a third case now in the present writ application. Submission of learned counsel that one Nutan Kumari could not have been appointed in the Panchayat because she did not belong to the Panchayat in question was not an issue before the appellate authority. It is a new case which is being made out by the petitioner now in the present writ application. An order is always based on the facts what it decides and not on the basis of what ought to be decided on the basis of the pleadings before the superior authority as submitted by the petitioner. It cannot be a ground for interference with the findings as such. If the petitioner feels that he has a case he will have to challenge the appointment of Nutan Kumari by moving the appellate authority concerned. So far as his present case is concerned, no interference is required at this stage unless the - 2 - finding comes against Nutan Kumari. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that even if appointment of the petitioner was wrong or illegal he cannot be denied salary for the period he had worked. A Division Bench of this Court has already held in similar matter that illegal appointment itself does not take away the right of an appointee to claim salary for the period he had worked. If the petitioner had worked under the respondents then it goes without saying that he is entitled for salary. The respondents are directed that steps will be taken for payment of salary for the period the petitioner has worked on due verification of the record. This writ application is otherwise disposed of with the above direction/observation. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)