D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the present petitioner was working with the respondents. There was dispute of date of birth of the father of the present petitioner. Respondents superannuated the father of the present petitioner from the services on 31st January, 2001. A civil suit beating Title Suit No. 131 of 2003 was instituted by the father of the present petitioner in the Court of Sub -Judge VI, Dhanbad. The suit was decreed in favour of the father of the present petitioner and, therefore, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to make payment of salary upto 31st January, 2003 on the basis of corrected date of birth as per the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Likewise all the consequential retiral benefits should also be paid to the petitioner. Father of the present petitioner expired on 6th January, 2006.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the respondents have paid following amounts to the petitioner: Serial No. Item Amount 1. Gratuity Rs. 2,89,567.00 2. Leave Encashment Rs. 3,581.00 3. Difference of Gratuity Rs. 43,197 + 6,033 4. Difference of Arrears on account of pay revision Rs. 32,808.62 5. Final Settlement of Provident Fund Rs. 7,29,560.00 6. Difference of Provident Fund Rs. 14,816.00 7. Refund of Pension Rs. 27,914.00 8. Difference of Provident Fund Rs. 16,826.00 9. Difference of Leave Encashment Rs. 2,193.00 10. Interest of Gratuity Rs. 4,906.00 Total Rs. 11,71,401.62 Thus, Rs. 11,71,401.62 is paid to the petitioner or his late father or his mother, after deducting a small recoverable amount as stated in the counter tiffidavit. It also appears from the facts of the case that because of the dispute of date of birth, the suit bearing Title Suit No. 131 of 2003 was filed. The suit was decreed in favour of the father of the present petitioner, but, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that an appeal has been preferred by respondents, bearing First Appeal No. 23 of 2005, which is admitted and pending before this Court. Thus, the dispute about date of birth is continued even on today.
(3.) IT is also submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that petitioner is not entitled for salary for the period running from 31st January, 2001 to 318t January, 2003. Firstly, for the reason that First Appeal No. 23 of 2005 is already admitted by this Court and secondly on the basis of principle of "No work, s salary". Petitioner's father has never worked for the intervening period, therefore, he is not entitled for salary. Thirdly for the reason that in Title Suit No. 131 of 2003, never such direction was given in judgment and decree passed by trial Court for payment of the salary to the father of the present petitioner for the aforesaid intervening period and, therefore, there is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.;