Order 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 bearing 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 Rs. 32,808.62 on account of pay revision 5. Final Settlement of Rs. 7,29,560.00 Provident Fund 6. Difference of Provident Rs. 14,816.00 Fund 7. Refund of Pension Rs. 27,914.00 8. Difference of Provident Rs. 16,826.00 Fund 9. Difference of Leave Rs. 2,193.00 Encashment 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 affidavit. 3. 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 Committed and pending before this Court. Thus, the dispute about date of birth is continued even on today. 4. 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 31st January, 2003. Thus, the dispute about date of birth is continued even on today. 4. 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 31st January, 2003. Firstly, fur 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, no 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. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the aforesaid payment of sizeable amount under various headings, which are already paid to the father or mother of the present petitioner or to the present petitioner. Looking to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, it also appears from the facts of the case that First Appeal No. 23 of 2005 is already admitted by this Court and, therefore, dispute of date of birth of the father of the present petitioner is still alive. Father of the present petitioner was never worked for the period running from 31 st January, 2001 to 31 st January, 2003 and, therefore, he was not entitled for any salary for the intervening period. Moreover, there is no direction in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for the payment of salary for the intervening period to the father 0.1 the present petitioner. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that some amount, which are deducted as stated in the counter affidavit are not legally deducted and, therefore, the amount which is deducted from the retirement benefits should be paid to the petitioner. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that some amount, which are deducted as stated in the counter affidavit are not legally deducted and, therefore, the amount which is deducted from the retirement benefits should be paid to the petitioner. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the deduction, which is referred to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, appears to be towards legally recoverable amount as the petitioner's father has retained the quarter for longer period after reaching the age of superannuation. A detailed explanation for the deductable amount has also been given in the counter affidavit. There is no rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner contradicting the facts stated in the counter affidavit, which are necessary for deduction of the smaller amounts. Once the factual aspect is not denied by the petitioner like retention of the quarter etc., I am not inclined to grant any benefit for recovery of the deducted amount. 7. In view of these facts, there is no substance in this writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.