IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.544 of 2009 BIKRAMGANJ NAGAR PANCHAYAT,BIKRAMGANJ,P.O.AND P.S.BIKRAMGANJ,DISTRICT-ROHTAS,THROGHT THE CHAIRMAN, SMT.AFRIN KHATOON, WIFE OF AALIM KURAISHI.----- --- Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Secretary, Urban development department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3.The Under Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4.Ganesh Ram son of Sri Anant Ram, R.O. village Tenduni,P.S.Bikaramganj, Dist. Rohtas 5.Sri Bhagwan Singh, son of sri Jang Bahadur Singh, R.O village-Narayanpur,P.s.Piro,Distr-Bhojpur 6.Ramakant Singh, son of Late Radha Krishna Singh, R/o village-Dharupur,P.S.Bikramganj, Dist.Rohtas 7.Surendra Prasad Singh, son of late Kulbansh Singh, R/o village-Mahuli (Dharupur) P.S.Bikarmaganj, Distt-Rohtas. ----- Respondents. ------------ For the appellant : Mr. S.B.K.Manglam For the respondents : Mr. Piyush Lal, AC to AAG-3 ------ 4. 22.6.2009. Heard Mr. S.B.K Mangalam for the appellant and Mr. Piyush Lal, Assistant Counsel to AAG-3 for the State. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.5560 of 2002 (Ganesh Ram & ors Vs. The State of Bihar & ors), whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the present appellant has been directed to pay salary to the writ petitioners for the past period. The private respondents herein had earlier preferred C.W.J.C.No.7124 of 1991, which was allowed 2 by judgment dated 26th August, 1996, the operative portion where is as follows: “In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioners for their respective posts. The future salary will be paid from month to month and arrears within six months.” The petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition were not paid their salary for part or whole of the past period on the ground of “no work, no pay”. This led to C.W.J.c.No.5560 of 2002, which was allowed by the said order dated 27.1.2009, and the authorities (appellant herein) has been directed to make payment for the entire past period in question. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a burden on exchequer of the State and, therefore, the direction in C.W.J.C.No.7124 of 1991 may be modified. It appears to us that the appellant herein (respondent therein) had failed to avail of the opportunity to raise the question of “No work, no pay” in C.W.J.C.No.7124 of 1991. The same will be deemed in law to have been raised and rejected. In other words, the order passed in 7124 of 1991 has attained finality. Therefore, the said order dated 27.1.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No.5560 of 2002 is a natural corollary and 3 consequential. The appellant has harassed the writ petitioners, compelling them to prefer the second writ petition when the situation had become quite clear by the order in the earlier writ petition, and also by preferring a most unmerited appeal. This appellant has twice burdened this Court with most unwanted and meritless matters. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. ahk (S.K.Katriar,J.) (Jyoti Saran,J.)