Santosh Kumar v. The High Court Of Judicature A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16999 of 2007 ====================================================== Santosh Kumar, Son of Late Parmeshwar Prasad, Resident of Village - Ishopur, P.S. Fulwarisharif District - Patna, at present posted and working as Peon Civil Court, Vaishali at Hajipur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The High Court of Judicature At Patna through Registrar General, Patna.

2. The District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md.Nurul Hoda For the Respondent/s : AC to GP - 12 Mr. Bindhyachal Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7.

07-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Govt. Pleader - 12 as well as learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of respondent/Patna High Court. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has made a prayer for peculiar relief i.e. for a direction to the respondents to pay full salary during the period when the petitioner was inside the jail. The petitioner remained in judicial custody from 23-09-1993 to 09-01-1994 in a police case registered for the offence under Sections 498A & 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been pleaded that since the petitioner put on trial and subsequently acquitted, he is entitled to get full salary for the period of suspension.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16999 of 2007 (7) dt.07-07-2015 2/2 In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed and in counter affidavit, a stand has been taken that during the period of suspension, full subsistence allowance admissible in law was already paid to the petitioner.

So far as the claim for full salary during the period of custody is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that once a public servant is confined in jail and he is in custody, automatically, it is deemed that he is put under suspension and during suspension, only subsistence allowance is required to be paid. The reason for denial has been made by the respondent that on the basis of principle of 'No Work No Pay', full salary has not been paid to the petitioner.

In view of the facts & circumstances, I do not find any ground to pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U