IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7277 of 2002 Kalawati Kumari @ Kalawati Devi, aged about 31 years, Daughter of Sri Shankar Prasad, Resident of Village Hurka, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar. 2. Director-in-chief, Health Services Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Kaimur, Bhabhua. -------- Respondents ----------- 9 17.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also taking into consideration that the following prayer of the petitioner:- “1. That this is an application for direction to the respondents to pay arrear of salary of the petitioner with all consequential benefits for the period petitioner was forced to remain out of service i.e. from July, 1997 to 22-4-2000.” has been the creation of the respondent Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Kaimur, Bhabhua of his own, inasmuch as, it was he who earlier terminated the service of the petitioner and again it was he who had reinstated the petitioner back in service on his own, he would be definitely liable to pay the salary for the aforementioned period as has been done by him in the case of 48 other similarly A.N.Ms. 2 True it is that such reinstatement with back wages for the period of termination in the case of similarly situated 48 other persons was made in view of the order of this Court but when the respondent Civil Surgeon had reinstated the petitioner back in service on his own by revoking her order of termination, he cannot discriminate in the matter of payment of salary for the period she was kept out of her service on account of the order of termination which was voluntary recalled by the Civil Surgeon himself. In this connection, it must be kept in mind that the respondent Civil Surgeon could not have deprived the petitioner the benefit of payment of her salary for the period of her termination, inasmuch as, from the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Civil Surgeon, Bhabhua filed in response to the following order of this Court dated 10.8.2010:- “List this case after two weeks in order to enable the counsel for the State to file clear supplementary counter affidavit as to under what circumstances the Civil Surgeon, Kaimur, whether on his own or on the application filed by the petitioner, had gone to 3 pass the order as contained in Annexure- 10 and what is the logic of payment of salary of the petitioner with effect from 22.4.2000.” has admitted that the termination order of the petitioner was recalled by him on his own as would be apparent from his following statement in the supplementary counter affidavit:- “2. That vide order dated 10.8.10 this Hon’ble Court directed to the Civil Surgeon to file Supplementary Affidavit on the point as to how the joining of the petitioner was accepted. 3. That this writ petitioner has neither challenged the order of termination nor her termination was quashed but the then Civil Surgeon in light of the order passed in Similar case has accepted the joining of the writ petitioner vide order no.645 dated 2.6.2000.” Thus, if the respondent Civil Surgeon was prudent and magnanimous to bestow equal treatment to the petitioner on his own by reinstating her back in service on the basis of order passed in cases of other similarly situated 48 A.N.Ms., he should not have stopped halfway and also not deprived 4 her of similar benefit of payment of back wages allowed in their cases by this Court in the order dated 3.1.2002 in CWJC No. 16039 of 2001 in the case of Shushila Kumari and others Vs. State of Bihar and ors. That being so, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)