JUDGMENT
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.
1. Prayer of the petitioner in this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to pay to him the salary for the period December, 1991 to 19.2.1995.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that by order dated 1.3.1990 (Annexure 2), petitioner was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife and her service was placed at the disposal of the Incharge Medical Officer, Nowa Nagar. In pursuance of the said order, petitioner joined and her salary was paid till her service was terminated by teleprinter message. It seems that by the teleprinter message, services of a large number of. Auxiliary Nurse Midwife were terminated and the matter travelled upto this Court- This Court found the termination of the petitioners service by the teleprinter message to be bad in law and directed the respondents to make inquiry after giving show cause notices to the employees concerned. Such an enquiry was held and the service of the petitioner was again terminated. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred CWJC No. 5410 of 1992 (Malti Kumari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.) before this Court. This Court, by order dated 3.10.1994, disposed of the writ application with the following direction :
“These applications are disposed of with direction to the concerned authorities of the State to consider cases of the petitioners against existing vacancies in the light of this order within four months. In CWJC No. 6640 of 1994, we are informed that the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur has cancelled appointment of the petitioner. Needless to say that the case of the concerned petitioner will be considered afresh ignoring the said order of cancellation.”
3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, by order dated 20.2.1995, petitioner was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife and posted at Nawa Nagar Block in the district of Bhojpur. While issuing the order of appointment and posting, it was made clear that the petitioner shall be paid the salary from the date of her joining.
4. Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned, counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the order of termination of the petitioner having been set aside by this Court, petitioner is entitled for payment of the back wages.
5. Mr. A.K. Choudhary, G.P. VIII, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the very assumption of the petitioner that the termination of her services was quashed by this Court in CWJC No. 5410 of 1992, is erroneous on fact and as such, the whole assumption of the petitioner that on account of her reinstatement, she will be entitled for the back wages, is fit to be rejected.
6. Having considered the rival submission, I do not find substance in the contention of Mr. Singh. True it is that the petitioner’s service was terminated but in the writ application filed by her, i.e., CWJG No. 5410 of 1992, this Court had not set aside the order of termination but directed the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner against the existing vacancy within a stipulated time. It seems that in the light of the aforesaid observation of this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered and by order dated 20.2.1995, she was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, I am of the opinion that in a case in which service of an employee is terminated and such an employee is appointed afresh and not reinstated there is no question of payment of back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. Further in case of order of reinstatement, this Court may deny back-wages. In the present case, there is no order setting aside termination or directing for reinstatement and payment of back-wages. In that view of the matter, petitioner shall not be entitled for the salary from the date of termination till her appointment.
7. To put the record straight, Mr. Singh has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 27.9.1999 passed in CWJC No. 8077 of 1998 (Manju Kumari Srivastava and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.), order dated 1.9.1994 passed in CWJC No. 307 of 2001 (Nandini Kumari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.), in support of his contention. In the case of Manju Kumari Srivastava (supra), the question was as to whether an employee whose service has been terminated, shall be entitled for back-wages in case the order of termination is quashed by this Court. Here in the present case, as observed earlier, the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was not quashed and this Court directed the authority to consider her case against the existing vacancy. In that view of the matter, the decision in the aforesaid case, in no way, supports the case of the petitioner. So far as the case of Nandini Kumar (supra) is concerned, this Court granted the relief to the petitioner of the said case on the ground that her case was covered by the decision of this Court in some earlier cases. Nothing has been pointed out to show that in a case in which fresh appointment is made in pursuance of the decision of this Court, the employee shall be entitled for back wages. Hence, this decision also does not support the case in any way.
8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order to cost.