IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8667 of 1995 CHUMAN PRASAD SRIVASTAVA @ CHUMAN LAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 25.8.2008. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage worker working in the office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Sasaram in the district of Rohtas. The case of the petitioner for absorption of his service was considered on 19.1.1987 and his services were absorbed in the said office. The pay of the petitioner was stopped on 17.4.1987 and an order was passed on 28.9.1987 terminating the services of the petitioner and others like him. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.9.1987 and 5.10.1987 by filing a service case before the Bihar Administrative Tribunal and after the Tribunal was abolished filed C.W.J.C.No.8002 of 1990 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 30.9.1991 disposed of the writ application quashing the order dated 28.9.1987 whereby the Civil surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer , Rohtas at Sasaram had been ordered to take steps for cancellation of the appointment of 95 persons including this petitioner. While disposing of the writ application, this Court observed that the petitioner would be entitled for payment of salary from 19.1.1987 to 28.9.1987 i.e., the period for which the petitioner had worked in the office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer. With respect to the intervening four years i.e., from - 2 - 28.9.1987 till the time the writ application was disposed of i.e., 30.9.1991. This Court held as follows: “It is an admitted position that the petitioners, have not been working on the post in question for the last about four years. We, in exercise of our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, do not make any order in regard to the payment of salary to the petitioners during the intervening period.” This Court had also directed that the authorities may look into the fact whether the appointments were validly made. Mr. Shivendra Kishore learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been found validly appointed after an enquiry as directed by this Court vide order dated 30.9.1991, it would be proper that the authorities should pay the petitioner’s salary for the period under termination. However, considering the observations of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.8002 of 1990 contained in annexure-13 and the fact that the petitioner had not actually worked for the intervening period, this Court cannot direct that the payment should be paid to the petitioner for the intervening period. While parting with this order, I observe that the intervening period has to be treated the period in service for all other purposes and in fact learned counsel submits perhaps it has been counted for the purpose of all other emoluments which would have been available to - 3 - the petitioner. The writ application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)