IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.4799 OF 2007 1.DR.SHASHI KANT MISHRA, S/O T.N MISHRA, R/O 245/33, ROAD NO. 10 E, RAJENDRA NAGAR, P.S.KADAMKUAN, PATNA-16, DISTRICT PATNA. 2.SYED NISAR AHMAD, S/O SYED NAQUI AHMAD, R/O MIG 348, P.S KANKARBAGH, PATNA-20, DISTRICT PATNA. 3.RAJESH CHANDRA VERMA, S/O LATE R.N. VERMS, R/O SINGHI KALAN, P.O & P.S. ARA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. 4.SHAMBHU PRASAD SHARMA,S/O LATE BINDESHWARY PRASAD SHARMA, AT KARMANTALA, P.S.ARA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. …………………PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE,PATNA. 3.THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 19.08.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the claim for payment of salary of the petitioners was squarely dependent on the terms and conditions given in their appointment letter, this Court will have no hesitation in holding that once the petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter, they would not be entitled for payment of their salary. From the records, it is clear that 2 the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon for which under the relevant rules there is a provision that such appointment could be made only after the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission. It was in this background that in their appointment letter following conditions were imposed:- Kki la[;k& 2@,1&1&04@89 578¼2½@Lok0] lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la[;k& 422 ,oa flfoy felysfu;l isfV”ku la[;k& 33779@88 ds flyflys esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fnukad& 10-3-89 ds funsZ”k ds vkyksd esa fuEukafdr ukS fpfdRldksa dks fcgkj LokLF; lsok ds vUrxZr lgk;d vlSfud “kY; fpfdRld ds in ij osrueku& 1150&1700& ----- 60&1820 esa fnukad& 1-4-89 ls rnFkZ:i ls fuEukafdr “kRrksZa ds lkFk fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA ¼d½ ;s ukS fpfdRld fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx n~okjk vk;ksftr vkxkeh izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ftlesa vkosnu nsus dh vafre frfFk 7-4-89 gS] esa lEesfyr gksxs---------------ijh{kk esa ugha cSBus@ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa bu fpfdRldksa dh fu;qfDr vk;ksx n~okjk bl ijh{kk ds ifj.kke izdkf”kr gksus ds ekg dh vfUre frfFk ls Lor% lekIr gks tk;sxh A It is not in doubt that the petitioners had submitted their joining on 01.04.1989, but then they did not file their application for appearing in the competitive examination for the post of medical Officer and therefore, their services had automatically stood dismissed on 07.04.1989, inasmuch as, only such Doctors appointed in the same transaction on 31.03.1989 could have claimed the 3 benefit of continuance in service who had actually filed their application in the Bihar Public Service Commission for appearing in the examination and had ultimately failed to pass any such examination. The petitioners in fact, having not even applied, cannot claim continuance in service after 07.04.1989. Once this aspect becomes clear that the petitioners' services had automatically stood terminated on 07.04.1989 in view of the non compliance of the conditions imposed in their appointment letter, there would not be any difficulty in distinguishing the order of this Court dated 04.03.2004 passed in C.W.J.C NO. 7271 of 1999 (Dr. Sunil Kumar vs The State of Bihar & Ors). The question of non compliance of the conditions imposed in the appointment letter was not decided in the aforesaid case. The payment of salary to a Government servant is not gratis and has to be made only for the work done by him. Once this Court would find that the petitioners had not complied the terms and conditions 4 imposed in their appointment letter, their claim for posting will have to be also rejected, inasmuch as, what was later on declared by the Government on 01.06.1990 with regard to the termination of services of the petitioners had already been achieved by the petitioners themselves by not complying the terms and conditions imposed in their appointment letter. Judged from this angle, the petitioners at best can be entitled for payment of their salary from 01.04.1989 to 07.04.1989 specifically when the respondents have not denied the joining of the petitioners on 01.04.1989. Consequently this Court would direct the respondents to make payment of salary for seven days i.e. from 01.04.1989 to 07.04.1989 within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)