IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2888 of 2002 Siya Ram Yadav son of Sri Kishun Yadav, resident of village Ratanpura, P.S. Kishanpur, District- Supaul ………….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Secretary, Human Resources and Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.Regional Deputy Director, Kosi Division, Department of Human Resources and Development, Saharsa 5.District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa 6.District Education Officer, Saharsa 7.Head Master, Primary School, Ratanpura Anchal Kishanpur, under District- Saharsa 8.Head Master, Middle School, Kataiya Anchal Pipra, Under District- Saharsa 9.District Superintendent of Education, Supaul ………… Respondents ----------- 7. 23/04/2010 Pursuant to order dated 26.2.2002 name of petitioner no.2 stands deleted from the cause title of the writ application. The sole petitioner has prayed in this writ application for release of his salary from 15.12.1988 to 12.5.1995. Petitioner claims that he was appointed by the Managing Committee of the School when it was under private management. Subsequently, the School was taken over and his services were also taken over. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of take over of services of the petitioner, he was entitled to - 2 - the salary from the date of take over of his services. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case, in which it is stated that the petitioner was not found working in the School on sanctioned post. Therefore, his salary was not paid from the date of take over of the school. Subsequently, vide order dated 13.6.1995, as contained in Annexure-C, issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, pursuant to the recommendation of the Establishment Committee, additional units of teachers were sanctioned in the School. As such, pursuant to the said sanction, name of petitioner was recommended by the Establishment Committee against said newly sanctioned post by Annexure-B and his services were approved and payment of salary of the petitioner commenced. Since there was no sanctioned post available in the School on the date the petitioner claims to be working, there was no question of payment of salary to him. So far as period prior to take over of the services of the petitioner is concerned, respondents are not liable to pay him salary and he may lay his claim before the - 3 - Management of the School for any period prior to take over of the School for his due salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to meet the submissions of learned counsel for the State and the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Instead, learned counsel for the petitioner has just referred to one order of this Court dated 14.7.1997 passed in C.W.J.C.No.7036 of 1996, wherein it has been said that if the incumbents are found to be working under the respondents, respondents cannot deny them salary. Said order is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as before sanction of unit, petitioner cannot be treated as being in service under the respondents. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)