JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. 2. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.03.2018 passed by the leaned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3892 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed negating the claim of the writ petitioner for payment of salary for the weekly holidays. 3. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as:- The writ petitioner was appointed on 27.09.1973 as Chaukidar in Class-IV grade in State Institute of Rural Development, Hehal, Ranchi and was working on the date of filing of the writ petition but during the pendency of the writ petition, he superannuated from service. It is the case of the writ petitioner that during his entire service career, he has not been provided with weekly holidays as also he has not been granted any remuneration for the same. Though repeated representations were made but to no avail. This led the writ petitioner to approach to this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge of this Court, on due deliberation on the issue and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the writ petition negating the claim for payment of salary for the weekly holidays which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the writ petitioner-appellant, although eligible to get weekly holidays but no such holiday was provided as also no remuneration for the holidays has been given and therefore, the writ petitioner-appellant agitated his grievance that since he is eligible to get weekly holidays and if no such holidays has been granted, in lieu thereof, he is entitled to get remuneration for the same but learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter and as such, the order impugned is not sustainable on the ground that since the writ petitioner has performed his duty since the year 1973 as Chaukidar, which is equivalent to Class-IV post, as such he is also entitled to get weekly holidays and if weekly holidays is not provided, he is entitled to get remuneration for the same. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated the grievance of the writ petitioner, rather has considered the circular/resolution put forth by the State respondent and basing upon the same the claim of the writ petitioner has been negated while the said circulars are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. He further submits that even the provision of Jharkhand Service Code as contained in Rule 239 and 248(a) as has been referred, is not applicable, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. SC-II appearing for the State respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since the writ petitioner is claiming salary for the weekly holidays although there is no such provision of salary for the weekly holidays. It has been submitted that the writ petitioner has been provided with the compensatory leave and after availing such compensatory leave, now he cannot come forward and claim for salary for the weekly holidays. He further submits that the learned Single Judge, taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has rightly not interfered with the claim put forth by the writ petitioner and as such, the order impugned requires no interference. 6. He further submits that the learned Single Judge, taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has rightly not interfered with the claim put forth by the writ petitioner and as such, the order impugned requires no interference. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions as also after going across the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, this Court deems it fit and proper to refer some undisputed facts in this case to the effect that the writ petitioner-appellant was appointed on 27.09.1973 as Chaukidar in State Institute of Rural Development, Hehal, Ranchi. The writ petitioner has agitated his claim that although he was entitled for weekly holidays, either Sunday or any day in a week, but no such holiday has ever been granted and as such he is entitled to get salary for the weekly holidays. It is the further admitted fact that the writ petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding by framing charge sometime in the year 1992 for taking leave and in the said charge it was mentioned that the writ petitioner took weekly leave on Sunday which is a misconduct and negligence in violation of Bihar Service Code and Conduct Rule as per charge-sheet dated 07.01.1992 as contained under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The writ petitioner submitted representation before the Respondent No. 3 for making of compensatory payment as the petitioner was denied the weekly holidays as well as gazetted holidays under Negotiable Instruments Act since the date of his appointment, i.e. with effect from 27.09.1973. The aforesaid claim was disputed by the respondent authorities inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner has availed all facilities since the date of his appointment, as per the provisions of Government Service Rules. The writ petitioner was given duty for eight hours and after the office hours he was supposed to remain present in the office premises, but number of times he left the premises without any prior intimation and that is the reason a departmental proceeding was also initiated. Further, it is the case of the respondents that he has been allowed compensatory leave for the duty he does on holidays. It is admitted fact herein that the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to produce any rule applicable to the writ petitioner pertaining to his entitlement about the weekly holidays. Further, it is the case of the respondents that he has been allowed compensatory leave for the duty he does on holidays. It is admitted fact herein that the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to produce any rule applicable to the writ petitioner pertaining to his entitlement about the weekly holidays. The impugned order makes reference of one resolution dated 27.09.1973 which was brought on record by way of counter affidavit which speaks about limitation of Chaukidars in availing holidays; compensatory holidays is subject to maximum 20 days which are allowed under resolution dated 27.09.1973. It further appears from the impugned order that the writ petitioner has availed compensatory leave by filing several applications dated 03.05.2007, 14.05.2007, 17.07.2007, 30.07.2007, 21.09.2007, 27.09.2007, 28.09.2007, 23.10.2007, 15.10.2007, 11.12.2007, 01.02.2007, 12.03.2008, 01.01.2008, 10.05.2008 and 18.09.2008. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner has availed the compensatory leave, has declined to pass any positive direction with respect to the relief sought for by the writ petitioner. The question herein is that the petitioner is claiming weekly holidays but the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has failed to bring to the notice of this Court that he is legally entitled to avail weekly holidays. He is working as Chaukidar which according to the writ petitioner, is Class-IV post and as such, he is claiming parity with Class-IV employees but parity cannot be claimed unless a post is regulated under the service rule. It is admitted case of the writ petitioner that there is no rule made by the State Government regulating the leave etc. of the persons working as Chaukidars, however, the provision as contained under Rule 239 of the Jharkhand Service Code has been referred. On critical appreciation of the aforesaid provision, we have found therefrom that the same speaks about the compensatory leave to the employees in lieu of the work done on Government holidays. Therefore, this Court is of the view that once the writ petitioner has obtained compensatory leave in lieu of working on the weekly holidays, it is not available to him to again claim the weekly holidays. The compensatory leave is only for the purpose to compensate such employees who have not been allowed to get a weekly leave depending upon the nature of service of such employee. The compensatory leave is only for the purpose to compensate such employees who have not been allowed to get a weekly leave depending upon the nature of service of such employee. It is further evident from the resolution dated 27.09.1973 that the compensatory leave is to be allowed subject to maximum 20 days in a calendar year and basing upon such circular, the writ petitioner made several applications for availing the compensatory leave and pursuant thereto he availed compensatory leave and if the learned Single Judge has not considered the relief sought for by the writ petitioner for making payment of weekly holidays taking into consideration the fact that he has already availed compensatory leave in pursuance of the resolution dated 27.09.1973, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. Further, the learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the provision of Rule 55 of the Jharkhand Service Code which speaks that the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him, and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority without claim for additional remuneration, whether the service required of him are such as would ordinarily be remunerated from general revenues or from a local fund, therefore, the learned Single Judge, on the basis of availing the compensatory leave coupled with the provision of Rule 55 of the Jharkhand Service Code, if has come to the conclusion about non-entitlement to avail any other extra leave, there is no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 7. It is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that he was proceeded departmentally by initiating a departmental proceeding by framing charge sometime in the year 1992 for taking leave and it was alleged that the writ petitioner took weekly leave on Sunday which is a misconduct. 7. It is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that he was proceeded departmentally by initiating a departmental proceeding by framing charge sometime in the year 1992 for taking leave and it was alleged that the writ petitioner took weekly leave on Sunday which is a misconduct. In course of pendency of the departmental proceeding, he has also been suspended but it has not been brought to the notice of either before the writ court or to this Court as to why the initiation of departmental proceeding along with the issuance of memorandum of charge pertaining to taking weekly leave on Sunday as also the order of suspension were not challenged and if the aforesaid departmental proceeding has not been challenged along with the order of suspension, it goes to suggest that the writ petitioner has accepted the fact that he has committed aforesaid misconduct which further suggests that the writ petitioner was not entitled to get weekly leave on Sunday or any other holidays. 8. We, taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. 9. In the result, the instant appeal fails and the same is dismissed.