IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17704 of 2009 1. SUNIL KUMAR JHA S/O LATE SINGHESHWAR JHA R/O VILL RAM NAGAR, P.S.GAYAGHAT,DISTT-MUZAFFARPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS RAVENUE CLERK IN ANCHAL CHORAUT,DISTT-SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNEMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION ,AT MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SITAMARHI 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER null BELSAN, DISTT-SITAMARHI 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER ANCHAL BELSAN, DISTT-SITAMARHI 7. THE CIRCLE OFFICER ANCHAL RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTT-SITAMARHI ----------- 3/ 09/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2008 issued by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division at Muzaffarpur by which his plea for salary in between October, 2004 to 5.6.2006 has been rejected on the principle of “No work, no pay”. The facts lie in a very narrow compass as evident from a conjoint reading of the orders dated 26.5.2006 and the impugned order dated 29.9.2008. The petitioner, a revenue clerk posted in Runni Saidpur Anchal, district- Sitamarhi, was transferred inter district to the Muzaffarpur Collectorate on 4.11.2004. He joined at the Muzaffarpur Collectorate when on account of non-availability of vacancies his joining was refused with a direction to go and join at 2 Sitamarhi Collectorate. The petitioner is then stated to have joined on 1.8.2005 in the office of the Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. He was then directed to forthwith join at the Sitamarhi Collectorate. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7418/06 which was disposed of noticing that he had subsequently on 26.5.2006 joined at Sitamarhi and had represented to the Commissioner for payment of arrears of salary. In pursuance thereof, the impugned order dated 29.9.2008 has been passed. The order is speaking in nature. It notices that he had been transferred inter district to Muzaffarpur, but for reason of non-availability of post acceptance of joining was refused and he was directed to join at the Sitamarhi Collectorate. In stead of doing that he joined in the office of the Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. The order states that details had been sought of the period between July, 2005 to 5.6.2006 of the places where the petitioner had remained posted between that period of time and discharged duties. The order further notices that the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi had clarified in reply that the petitioner in stead of joining the Collectorate, Sitamarhi had submitted his joining in the office of the Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 3 The impugned order concludes abruptly that if he was required to join in the office of the Sitamarhi Collectorate, he could not have joined the office of the Commissioner and he had violated the orders and was, therefore, not entitled to salary on the principle of “No work, no pay”. This Court is satisfied from a bare reading of the orders dated 26.5.2006 and 29.9.2008 read with the order in C.W.J.C. No.7418/06 that unauthorized absence and a show cause notice or proceedings against the petitioner do not appear to be an issue at all. Assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner disobeyed an order of joining at the Sitamarhi Collectorate and gave his joining in the office of the Commissioner at Muzaffarpur, the question still remains whether any departmental proceedings were initiated against him or he continued to mark attendance and discharged duties in the office of the Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. If he discharged duties, even wrongly, the principle of “No work, no pay” shall not apply. If he gave his joining wrongly in the office of the Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, he discharged no duties, then also the above principle may be invoked. 4 No useful purpose is going to be served by directing the respondents to file a counter affidavit on an issue which should have originally found place in the discussion in the impugned order dated 29.9.2008. The impugned order does not answer the crucial issue whether the petitioner was discharging duties or not even at the wrong place. The impugned order dated 29.9.2008 is set aside for that reason alone. Let the respondents pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing specifically with the issue that whether after the alleged wrong joining in the office of the Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, the petitioner continued to mark attendance and discharged work in the office of the Commissioner or not and then pass appropriate orders on his claim for salary. Let the same be done within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)