IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13917 of 2002 1. LALITA DEVI, W/o Triyogi Narayan Jha, residing at E.S.I. Hospital Campus, Phulwarishariff, District Patna 2. Binita Lal, W/o Sri Vijay Kumar, resident of E.S.I. Hospital campus, Phulwari Shariff, District Patna … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Health Services, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Labour & Employment Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Incharge Medical Insurance Officer, Phulwarishariff Hospital, Patna 4. The Deputy Superintendent, Employees State Insurance Hospital, Phulwarishariff, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 3. 30.6.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the two writ petitioners in this application reads as follows: “The petitioners are filing this writ application for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay the monthly salary of petitioners withheld since the month of October, 2002 till date and to pay the regular salary of petitioners in each month and to allow them to discharge their duty regularly at the place of their posting on their respective posts and for issuance of any other writ/writs, direction/ 2 directions as this Hon‟ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that earlier the services of the petitioners were placed on deputation in Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESI Corporation) and therefore, once the petitioners had also given an option to be permanently absorbed in ESI they had a legitimate expectation of continuing over there. He would further submit that the order of ESI Corporation for returning their services to their parent department, Health Department, in view of the aforementioned legitimate expectation was contrary to the Rules, inasmuch as the petitioners had a right to be considered for their absorption. This Court would find that the order by which the services of the petitioners were repatriated to their parent department, Health Department, being order of ESI Corporation No. 51 dated 30.6.2001 was made subject matter of C.W.J.C.No. 13984/2001 and this Court did not stay the 3 Surendra/ order of repatriation of the services of the petitioners and yet they did not choose to comply the order. In such circumstances, the ESI Corporation had relieved them by an order dated 15.11.2002, as contained in Annexure „A‟. Once the petitioners were relieved by the ESI Corporation by the order dated 15.11.2002 they had no justification to claim salary either from ESI Corporation where they could not have continued or from the Government where they did not join. In that view of the matter, the claim of salary of the petitioners is absolutely misconceived, inasmuch as payment of salary is made for the work done by an employee. Once the petitioners had not chosen to comply the order of repatriation of ESI Corporation, this Court would not find any reason for directing the authorities of the Health Department (ESI Corporation) to make payment of salary for the period the petitioner had not worked. That being so, this application has no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 4