Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 66 (PAT)

Raghunath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-01-24

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5. 2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 17. whereby and whereunder the period of absence of the petitioner ranging in between 2.2.1991 to 26.11.1992 has been regularised but not with full salary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the period of absence of the petitioner, as referred to above, was regularised and the period, as such, was treated to be on leave, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to grant salary for the period aforesaid. It is further submitted by learned counsel that absence of the petitioner was beyond his control, as proper posting was not given to him by the Agriculture Department. 4. It appears that this case has chequered career. The petitioner is an employee of the Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar. For some time, he was on deputation in the Rural Development Department and by order dated 9.10.1990 he was repatriated to his parent Department by the Rural Development Department. The aforesaid order, however, was challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6751 of 1990. The writ application was, ultimately, disposed of on 16.1.1991 vide order, as contained in annexure 2, directing the State respondents to give proper posting to the petitioner in Agriculture Department within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. 5. The matter remained pending and it appears that neither a proper posting was given by the Agriculture Department to the petitioner within the time limit framed by this Court nor the petitioner submitted his joining in the Agriculture Department, rather it appears that the petitioner reported his joining in the Rural Development Department, wherefrom he was repatriated in the year 1990 itself. 6. Somehow or the other, posting was given to the petitioner by the Rural Development Department vide order, as contained in annexure 3 dated 27.11.1992. However, ultimately, the petitioner came to the Agriculture Department at a belated stage after filing of two writ applications in this Court which were disposed of vide orders, as contained in annexures 14 and 15 in the year 2000. 7. However, ultimately, the petitioner came to the Agriculture Department at a belated stage after filing of two writ applications in this Court which were disposed of vide orders, as contained in annexures 14 and 15 in the year 2000. 7. The period of absence of the petitioner in the Agriculture Department from 2.2.1991 to 26.11.1992, however, was considered by the Agriculture Department and owing to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent authorities regularised his services where part of the period of leave of was treated to be without pay or some with pay. 8. From the facts, as enumerated above, it appears that the respondent authorities treated the period of absence of the petitioner as on extra-ordinary leave or as earned leave and the same was not treated as break in service of the petitioner and pensionary benefit of the petitioner was protected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not complaining that by virtue of order, as contained in annexure 17, his pensionary benefit would be affected or, in any way, it will cause prejudice to him. 10. The State authorities while considering the period of absence of a Government servant are required to treat the same on leave or the same as break in service. This appears to be the discretion of the State authorities to decide this question in the background of the case. 11. Seeing the nature of the order, as contained in annexure 17 and in the background of the facts of this case, as noticed above, in my opinion, it does not require any interference by this Court. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the order, as contained in annexure 18, may be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, so far fixation of pension is concerned. 13. The petitioner, in case, apprehends any prejudice at the face of the order, as contained in annexure 18, he will be at liberty to represent the matter before the authorities concerned, which would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. 14. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is, accordingly, dismissed.