ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 19.09.2012, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period between 11.09.2003 to 20.02.2008 has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on 29.7.1973 on the post of Mining Sardar. Two criminal cases being Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case no. 196/2004 and Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case no. 157/2003 were lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner was taken into judicial custody. The petitioner was acquitted in both the criminal cases. The petitioner was permitted to join his duty on 21.2.2008. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the departmental proceeding no order was passed against the petitioner and the petitioner was permitted to join his post. The standing order as contained in Clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Order of M/s C.C.L. provides that during the pendency of criminal case a workman shall be suspended and he would be entitled for payment of 50 % wages and on acquittal from criminal charge an employee would be entitled for payment of full wages. Since, the petitioner is acquitted in both the criminal cases by order dated 14.3.2008 and by order dated 21.5.2008, he is entitled for salary between the period 11.09.2003 to 20.02.2008. He has further submitted that petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2114 of 2009 which was disposed of by order dated 14.6.2012 directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner. However, by impugned order dated 19.9.2012, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of 'no work no pay', which cannot be sustained in view of the Standing Order. 5. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-C.C.L has resisted the claim of the petitioner by contending that the provision contained in the Standing Order is not mandatory. 6. Clause 28.9 of the Standing Order is extracted below: “28.9 Notwithstanding the provisions contained in these standing orders, as above, the Management reserves the right to suspend a workman being prosecuted in a court of law for any grave criminal offence involving moral turpitude or murder until the disposal of the trial. 6. Clause 28.9 of the Standing Order is extracted below: “28.9 Notwithstanding the provisions contained in these standing orders, as above, the Management reserves the right to suspend a workman being prosecuted in a court of law for any grave criminal offence involving moral turpitude or murder until the disposal of the trial. In such cases the workman concerned shall be entitled to 50 % of wages as subsistence allowance. In case the above workman is finally acquitted, he would be paid full wages for the period of suspension.” 7. On a perusal of the provision contained in Clause 28.9, I find that a right has been reserved with the management to suspend the workman during the proceeding in the criminal Court and if the management chooses to suspend the workman, the delinquent workman would be entitled for grant of 50 % wages as subsistence allowance. I do not find any mandatory stipulation in Clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Order that in all the cases in which the criminal proceeding initiated against a delinquent employee has resulted in his acquittal, the delinquent employee put under suspension would be entitled for grant of remaining 50 % of the salary. I am of the view that Clause 28.9 is not at all applicable in the petitioner's case as he was not put under suspension. I further find that both the criminal cases were lodged against the petitioner at the instance of 3rd party and therefore, it is not the act on the part of the management which has prevented the employee from performing his duty. The petitioner remained absent from duty because he remained in jail. 8. In view of aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.