IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1642 of 2004 Bhudeo Prasad Yadav @ Bhudeo Yadav, Son of Late Sital Prasad Yadav, Panchayat Sewak, Khagaria Block, District-Khagaria. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Khagaria. 3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Khagaria. 4. The Block Development Officer, Khagaria Block, District-Khagaria. -Respondents. ----------- 05 11.01.2011 By this writ petition, the petitioner has made grievance with regard to non-payment of his salary as Panchayat Sewak for the period 02.09.1999 to 13.08.2000. It may be mentioned here that for 12 days in between this period authorities have agreed to pay his salary. It appears that a counter affidavit has been filed in which the only stand taken by the authorities is that on basis of no work no pay principle petitioner is being denied his payment. It is further pointed out that as petitioner has moved a contempt application in which this Court did not interfere respondents are entitled not to make payment. Having heard the parties, with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner was Panchayat Sewak and posted at Parbatta block in the district of Khagaria. Before the Parliamentary elections, so far as Panchayat Sewaks are concerned, a decision was taken to transfer all Panchayat Sewaks who remained for at least five years or more. Transfer orders were passed. They were being reconsidered on basis of various representations made by the persons who had either to retire or other genuine difficulty. While there were - 2 - being done, General elections were announced and the model code of conduct came into effect. Accordingly, all transfers and postings were stayed. Petitioner’s case is that though transfer orders were issued, they have not been acted upon and he remained at Parbatta. In support thereof, he has annexed documents to show that during that period he was treated as being at Parbatta as a Panchayat Sewak and was allotted election duty as well. When no payment was being made to the petitioner, petitioner approached this Court. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondents to pass speaking order and make payment accordingly. When payment was not made, petitioner filed a contempt application. The order is annexed in the counter affidavit. In the order disposing of the contempt proceedings it is stated that the respondents have agreed to pay wages for 12 days and for the rest they have denied the same by speaking order which may be challenged. It is accordingly that this present writ petition has been filed. At this stage, I may note the contention of the State that as this Court refused to interfere in contempt proceedings their orders is correct. It is not so. The substantive order having been passed, petitioner was left with remedy of filing a fresh writ petition, which does not amount to affirming the order concerned. Coming to the claim of petitioner, on respondents’ own showing during period under consideration, petitioner as Panchayat Sewak at Parbatta was assigned election duty, for these periods - 3 - respondent-District Panchayat Raj Officer has agreed to make payment of petitioner’s wages. In my view, learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that this is a tacit admission of the fact that at that time petitioner was on duty and working as Panchayat Sewak, Parbatta. He is further correct in submitting that the stand of the District Panchayat Raj Officer is diabolical and unsustainable inasmuch as in the same period he accepts petitioner acting as election officer by virtue of being Panchayat Sewak of Parbatta Block but at the same time for the period before or after the election he refused to recognize petitioner as Panchayat Sewak posted at Parbatta Block. Such conflicting stand cannot be taken. Either petitioner was posted and working as Panchayat Sewak at Parbatta Block or he was not. Once the authority accepts that he did work as election officer, being Panchayat Sewak at Parbatta Block, then they cannot resile for that situation in the same period. Thus, I have no option but to hold that the impugned order, as passed by the Panchayat Raj Officer, Khagaria dated 27.05.2002 is not sustainable. It is, accordingly, set aside. It is directed that the petitioner be paid his remuneration as Panchayat Sewak for the period 02.09.1999 to 13.08.2000 within a period of six months before the said Officer. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)