ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (a) Memo no. 120-Patna dated 07.01.2002 as well as letter no. 1212 dated 13.07.1998 be set aside whereby and whereunder the commuted leave for the period from 10.04.1997 to 17.07.1997 and also the period of waiting for posting from 18.07.1997 to 01.01.1998 have been rejected. (b) The Memo no. 5509-Patna dated 28.09.2004 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna be set aside whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for grant of leave for the period 10.04.1997 to 01.01.1998 has been rejected granting extraordinary leave and further it has been directed that the said period shall not be counted for the purpose of pension. (c) Respondent be directed to treat the petitioner on duty during the period from 10.04.1997 to 17.07.1997 and from 18.07.1997 to 01.01.1998 by virtue of Rule 234 of the Bihar Service Code and Leave Admissibility Report issued by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. (d) Respondents be directed to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner after regularizing the said period. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Engineer Assistant in the Department of River Valley and he joined his first assignment at Indrapuri on 14.10.1966 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 29.12.1971 and was again promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and on that post he joined his assignment at the headquarter at Patna on 26.12.1984. He further claimed that on 22.07.1999 he became entitled for his next promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and also to the post of Chief Engineer with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted, hence he filed C.W.J.C. No. 11087 of 2000 for grant of promotion, which case is still pending for final hearing. 3. He further claimed that on 22.07.1999 he became entitled for his next promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and also to the post of Chief Engineer with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted, hence he filed C.W.J.C. No. 11087 of 2000 for grant of promotion, which case is still pending for final hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this writ petition has been filed for a different reason altogether with respect to his representation to the authority for sanction of commuted leave from 10.04.1997 to 17.07.1997 on medical ground as well as for the period of waiting for posting from 18.07.1997 to 01.01.1998 as he had met with a jeep accident in the year 1997, in which he was severely injured and went from Patna to outside the State for medical treatment, but inspite of that his application was finally rejected by the authorities by the impugned order. 4. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings as well as from the materials on record, the facts become quite clear that vide notification dated 26.12.1996 the petitioner was transferred from Drainage Division, Hajipur to Irrigation Division, Navanagar, but he did not join on the new place of posting and after months he applied for sanction of earned leave from 26.02.1997 to 31.03.1997, which was forwarded by the Superintending Engineer, Drainage and Investigation Circle, Muzaffarpur to the Department and in the meantime the petitioner in compliance of the Government order dated 26.12.1996 took over charge of the Irrigation Division, Navanagar after two months on 05.03.1997, whereafter he again applied for leave from 23.03.1997 to 31.05.1997 for treatment of his wife, who, according to him, was suffering from heart problem. He again sent letter dated 23.03.1997 requesting for grant of leave for the aforesaid period for treatment of his own eyes in Shankar Netralaya, Madras. 5. It also transpires that the Superintending Engineer, Sone Canal Circle, Arrah, did not recommend the petitioner’s leave in view of the work of `Malay Barrage’ being taken up and the petitioner was expeditiously needed for preparation of revised estimate and survey work and hence the petitioner’s leave application was rejected on 14.05.1997, but inspite of that the petitioner proceeded on leave after submitting application for casual leave from 10.04.1997 to 15.04.1997 to the Superintending Engineer and then continuously remained absent for a long time. 6. 6. Hence the petitioner went on leave on his own without handing over charge of Navanagar Division. In these circumstances, the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division No. 1, Arrah, was directed by the Superintending Engineer, Arrah, to take over charge of Irrigation Division of Navanagar on 29.05.1997 in interest of the pending works for the said Control Division as the monsoon was fast approaching. Thereafter, for expeditious completion of ‘Malay Barrage’ the Executive Engineer- Sri Kapildeo Singh was posted independently in Irrigation Division, Navanagar vide notification dated 17.06.1997, where he took over charge from Shri Horo on 19.06.1997. 7. The record also shows that immediately after the aforesaid notification was passed, the petitioner reported his joining in the headquarter on 18.07.1997 along with a certificate issued by a local Doctor. Eventually the petitioner was posted at Dam and Barrage Design Division, Jamshedpur vide notification dated 31.12.1997, where he took over charge on 21.01.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a similar application, which was considered at Government level and was rejected vide letter dated 13.07.1998. Against the said rejection, the petitioner did not approach any higher authority. 8. The petitioner had raised the said issue by filing a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 5898 of 2001 in the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, which was disposed of on 07.12.2001 with the following observations :- “Since the period in question, the petitioner was posted at Patna, the petitioner may pursue his claim before the State of Bihar by filing suitable representation. In case, the petitioner files a fresh representation before the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, then the latter shall consider and dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order by 31st of January, 2002.” 9. Furthermore, C.W.J.C. No. 11087 of 2000, which was filed by the petitioner regarding his promotion, was heard by a Bench of this Court on 17.11.2006 and was dismissed after finding no merit in the claim of the petitioner. 10. From the aforesaid facts, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had been raising frivolous claims and was himself responsible for his predicaments. 10. From the aforesaid facts, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had been raising frivolous claims and was himself responsible for his predicaments. It was only after two and a half months of the issuance of notification dated 26.12.1996 that the petitioner took over charge of Irrigation Division, Navanagar, on 05.03.1997 and immediately thereafter he applied for leave twice on different dates specifying two different reasons, the first for his wife’s treatment and second was for his own treatment. Although his leave applications were rejected by the authorities, but inspite of it he proceeded on leave at his own level and immediately after posting of another Executive Engineer in Irrigation Division, Navanagar, on 17.07.1997, the petitioner joined at the headquarter on 18.07.1997 and submitted fitness certificate of a local Doctor. 11. In the said circumstances, it is found proved that the petitioner’s intention was simply not to work in Irrigation Division, Navanagar and at the same time he wanted to be posted at another place, which he achieved successfully in an illegal manner by disobeying the higher authorities by wilful absence from his post despite rejection of his application for leave. 12. As per the claim of the petitioner, he had filed C.W.J.C. No. 1606 of 2004 challenging the rejection of his leave applications vide orders dated 13.07.1998 and 07.01.2002 and after hearing the parties a Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 14.05.2004 directing the petitioner to challenge the said impugned orders by way of filing a representation before the authorities concerned. In view of the aforesaid order of this Court, the authorities of the Department again considered the matter in detail and by a speaking order dated 07.01.2002 rejected the claim of the petitioner giving specific reasons as mentioned above for rejection of the applications for leave filed by the petitioner. The said impugned order of the authority concerned appears to be legal and justified as well as in accordance with the prescribed rules. 13. Hence, this Court does find any merit in the claim of the petitioner and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.