IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13561 of 2009 1. NAVIN KUMAR SINGH S/O MAHENDRA SINGH VILL.- TUNGI, P.S. DEEP NAGAR, DISTT.- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NALANDA 3. CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER NALANDA 4. IN CHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE BISHUNPUR, CHANDI, NALANDA ----------- 2. 13.01.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner was appointed on the post of A.N.M. Primary Health Centre, Bishunpur, Chandi, Nalanda on 24.07.1993. Since then he is continuously discharging his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned but payment of his salary has been stopped since April, 2008 on the pretext of an inquiry with regard to genuineness of the appointment of the petitioner. A committee has been constituted for conducting inquiry. Petitioner’s case is that the committee has already submitted its report; even then the payment of the petitioner has not been resumed. It is well settled that the Government Servant who is discharging his duties, is entitled for payment of salary. In the name of inquiry, relating to genuineness of appointment, payment of salary cannot be stopped, illegally unless finding is recorded against the validity of the appointment of the employees. Petitioner was appointed in the year, 1993 and after so many years, in case the legality of his appointment was questioned, then it was proper for the authorities to initiate a departmental 2 proceeding and only after giving opportunity to the employee, any adverse order could be passed. Unless final order is passed, there is no reason for not making payment of salary to the employees. I find that the respondents have arbitrarily stopped making payment of salary to the petitioner and it must be resumed. Accordingly, the Civil Surgeon, Nalanda is directed to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner which has been stopped since April, 2008. His month-to-month current salary shall also be paid as still he is discharging his duties and there is no finding that appointment of the petitioner was illegal. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)