IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1022 of 1997 1. PRASOON KUMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, SON OF SHRI BINESH CHANDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIDHU NAGAR, P.O. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA G/2, SADHNAPURI, P.O AND P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. 2. LAL BAHADUR PRASAD YADAV, SON OF SHRI BAIJNATH CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIARI KARN, P.O. LAKRI DARGAH, DISTRICT SIWAN, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KIDWAIPURI, P.& T. COLONY, BEHIND TYPE-I, P.O. KIDWAIPURI, DISTRICT PATNA. 3. REM JINISH MAHTO, SON OF LATE RAMBALI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHOBWALIA, P.O. JIGRAWAN, DISTRICT SIWAN, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF C/O SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JAGDEO PATH, BAILEY ROAD, P.O. VETERINARY COLLEGE, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE SOCIAL WELFARE ADVISORY BOARD, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE SOCIAL WELFARE ADVISORY BOARD, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. For the petitioners : M/s. Y.V. Giri, Sr.Adv., Rajiv Giri, Pranav Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, SC-8, R.K. Sinha, AC to SC-8. For the Board : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 17. 16.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and the counsel for the Bihar State Social Welfare Board, Patna. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.1996, Annexure-19 passed by the Director, Social Welfare, whereunder their representation for payment of salary on the post of Personal Assistant and Peon attached to the Chairman of the Board has been rejected holding that they were appointed as personal staff of the Chairman in the light of the instructions of the State Government contained in letter No.10700 dated 18.11.1981, their appointment was coterminous with the tenure of the Chairman as per the instructions of the State Government contained in letter No.1766 dated 26.4.1968 stood terminated on the date Chairman demitted office. Petitioners having - 2 - been paid their salary during the period they served the Chairman they are not entitled for any salary after the Chairman demitted office as petitioners are not the permanent staff of the Board. I do not see any illegality in the impugned order. The writ application is dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)