JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kant and Rajiv Sharma, JJ. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri O.P. Srivastava and Ms. Jyoti Sikka, learned Counsel appearing for the State. 2. The Petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department who was suspended by means of order dated 8th June, 2006 in contemplation of formal disciplinary proceeding, challenged the suspension order by filing Writ Petition No. 792 (SB) of 2006 during summer vacation and the Division Bench of this Court passed a time bound interim order of stay on 26th June, 2006. The interim order reads as under: Till the next date of listing, the implementation and operation of the impugned suspension order dated 8th June, 2006 passed by opposite party No. 1 (as contained in Annexure No. 1) shall remain stayed. It is, however, observed that the inquiry contemplated against the Petitioner shall continue. 3. As a result of the aforesaid interim order passed by the Court, the State Government has revoked the suspension order and reinstated him in service, as the order says, and attached him in the office of Engineer-in-Chief (Development), Public Works Department, U.P. Lucknow. This order has been passed on 18th July, 2006. The grievance of the Petitioner against the aforesaid order is against his attachment in the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, (Development), Public Works Department U.P. Lucknow as he claims that after suspension order was stayed by the High Court, the Petitioner has a right not only of being reinstated in service but also to continue to discharge his duties and to be posted against a working post. 4. In support of his plea he has relied upon the case of P.K. Chinnasamy Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, AIR 1988 SC 78 . In the aforesaid case the Appellant, an officer of the State of U.P., has proceeded on casual leave for four days; he was replaced by another officer and was transferred to another place where he was not given work commensurate to his status, the Supreme Court, therefore, held in para 4 of the said report that it cannot be lost sight of that every public officer is a trustee and in respect of the office he holds and the salary and other benefits which he draws he is obliged to render appropriate service to the State. The Court further observed that if an officer does not behave as required of him under the law, he is certainly liable to be punished in accordance with law but it would ordinarily not be appropriate to continue an office against a post and provide no work to him and yet pay him out of the Consolidated Fund. 5. A Government servant has a right to get his salary regularly when he is in service unless of course by any legal order may be of suspension or otherwise, this right is curtailed or withheld. He has no fundamental right to discharge functions and to do work. It is a different matter that the State Government while paying salary to a Government officer or public servant has to take work and takes work but in the given circumstances it is always open to the State Government either to take work or not to take work but to pay the salary, in case the Government servant has not been placed under suspension or has not been punished. 6. The Petitioner's plea that the suspension order having been stayed by the Court, therefore, he cannot be placed under attachment and has a right to be posted at a working post misses the very fact that the interim order firstly; stays the operation and implementation of the suspension order and secondly; it provides that enquiry against the Petitioner be continued. In case any enquiry is contemplated or is continued against a Government servant he can very well be kept under attachment during the enquiry. 7. P.K. Chinnaswami, was not a case of pending enquiry against the officer concerned but it was a case where the officer had gone on four days casual leave and when he returned he was deprived of his posting and was required to discharge the duty on the post which was not commensurate to his status therefore, the law laid down therein is of no assistance to the Petitioner. 8. The impugned order takes into consideration the terms of the interim order staying the operation of the suspension order and specifically says that the order has been passed subject to further order, which may be passed in the writ petition and that the enquiry against the Petitioner shall continue. 9. 8. The impugned order takes into consideration the terms of the interim order staying the operation of the suspension order and specifically says that the order has been passed subject to further order, which may be passed in the writ petition and that the enquiry against the Petitioner shall continue. 9. The plea of mala fide raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, since has not been substantiated nor could be substantiated from the plea raised in the writ petition, we leave this issue open as the plea of mala fide is to be considered on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case which varies from one case to another and may be in some case, the order of attachment may become bad if the person challenging that order is successful in pleading and establishing mala fide in the passing of the order. 10. Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner lastly submitted that liberty be given to the Petitioner to make a representation to the State Government against the said attachment. We need not grant any such liberty as it is always open to a Government servant to make any representation that he deems proper as per the Rules, to the State Government and the State Government would always be competent to consider such a representation. 12. It is open to the State also to keep the Petitioner under attachment till such time as it finds deem and fit or to post him even during the enquiry proceeding to some other place or to change his place of attachment as per its own discretion but the High Court would rarely interfere in such matters unless of course a very strong case is made out for such interference. 13. The petition is dismissed.