Order The short question which has been raised by an Ex-employee is whether after his acquittal in a criminal trial he is entitled for payment of salary when he was in judicial custody. Petitioner is claiming full salary from ,28.2.1996 till 11.5.1997. It is this period when the petitioner was in custody and had to be suspended in a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been paid subsistence allowance for the period though. 2. Petitioner was tried by a criminal court. Based on the evidence which came, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC., Buxar acquitted the petitioner because the evidence did not pin him to any culpability on his part. 3. Petitioner is back now seeking benefit of full salary for the period he was in custody because according to him since he has been acquitted he must get back his honour on all counts. 4. There is no dispute that after acquittal the petitioner had been restored all benefits but salary for the period of judicial custody was not given to him. By no stretch of imagination it could be urged that he was on duty in any capacity. If the petitioner had not worked he cannot claim his salary even though he was subsequently acquitted by a criminal court after trial is the stand of the State. 5. These are the circumstances where the principle of no work no pay will have to be applied by an employer since he had no role to play in the criminal case or his detention in judicial custody. 6. Learned counsel for the State has cited a decision rendered in the case of Babulal V5. Haryana State of Agriculture Marketing Board reported in (2009)4 SCC 287 . 7. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Paragraph-9 of the decision where such a proposition has been dealt with by the Apex Court and the Apex Court was also of the opinion that payment of salary for such period cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Paragraph-9 has been quoted here-in-below for ready reference:- "9. A reading of the aforesaid decision of this Court would show that the authorities are vested with power to decide whether an employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to which he deserves it. Paragraph-9 has been quoted here-in-below for ready reference:- "9. A reading of the aforesaid decision of this Court would show that the authorities are vested with power to decide whether an employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to which he deserves it. This decision also clearly suggests that there is no inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated from disciplinary/criminal proceedings, he should be automatically entitled to salary including all benefits for the intervening period. This decision of this Court would also show that where the acquittal of an employee in a criminal proceeding was on benefit of doubt, the employer has a right to decide whether or not such an employee deserves any salary for the intervening period." 8. In the above circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner has a right to claim salary for the period when he was in judicial custody may be as an under-trial prisoner. After all it seems that there is no absolute law in such circumstances that an employee has to be compensated by payment to the last penny after he was exonerated or acquitted by the Criminal Court. 9. In view of the above this Court is not inclined to give any decisive direction for payment of salary to the petitioner for period he was in detention. 10. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed.