IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.750 of 2008 ---- 1. Md.Hanif @ Hanu son of Late Barho Mian, resident of village Sikandara P.S. Sikandara, District Jamui. 2. Md. Hanif Khan son of Late Hafiz Khan resident of village Sikandara P.S.Sikandara, District Jamui … Petitioners/Appellants. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Water Resources Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief Cum Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer Water Resources Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Div. No.2 Jamui. 7. The Executive Engineer Irrigation Div. Sikandara, Jamui. … … Respondents/ Respondents ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the respondents : None. ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 25th September, 2008 Heard counsel for the appellants. 2. In the garb of claiming unpaid wages, the appellants sought indirectly to set up the case that there was no order of termination. In counter affidavit, a categorical statement has been set up by the - 2 - respondents that with effect from Ist April, 1995, the appellants’ services were terminated along with few other employees. The documents in support thereof have been placed on record along with the reply. Despite the specific stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the services of the appellants were brought to an end with effect from Ist April, 1995, the appellants did not seek leave of the court in amending the writ petition. In this background, the submission of the counsel for the appellants that the single judge overlooked and ignored the fact that the appellants (petitioners) continued to be in employment right from the year 1985, is wholly misconceived. As a matter of fact, from the documents, that have been placed on record by the respondents, it is amply established that the termination order came to be issued with effect from Ist April, 1995. If after termination, the petitioners continued to work, they did so at their own peril. Surely, the state government is not liable to make payment of salary to them. 3. The consideration of the matter by the single judge does not call for any interference. 4. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil