ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 02.01.1995 as Assistant Commandant in Border Security Force and he was promoted in the rank of Deputy Commandant in the year, 2001. By order dated 03.09.2009, the petitioner and two others were deputed in the state of Jharkhand. The petitioner continued in service till 31.05.2013 when he was finally relieved by the respondent no. 4. However, by order dated 29.04.2013 the deputation of the petitioner was extended by 31.03.2013 and he was ordered to be repatriated to his parent department. By order dated 20.05.2013 payment of salary to the petitioner only upto 31.03.2013 has been ordered. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court raising a plea that by the impugned order dated 20.05.2013, the payment of salary to the petitioner only upto 31.03.2013 has been made, the effect of which would be that the petitioner would be treated not on duty from 01.04.2013 till 31.05.2013, the date on which he was finally relieved by the respondent no. 4. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under:- “11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that after completion of his deputation period the Police Headquarters vide letter dated 22.03.2013 sent recommendation to the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand for repatriation to his parent department. The said recommendation dated 22.03.2013 for repatriation of the petitioner alongwith other two similarly situated officers had been accepted by the State Government and vide Home Department notification no. 2022 dated 29.04.2013 petitioner's service has been sent back to his parent department.” 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that by office order dated 20.06.2013, a direction has been issued for regularization of service and payment of salary to the petitioner and other two persons till 20.05.2013. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not denied the genuineness of letter dated 31.05.2013, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The learned counsel has further submitted that, though the petitioner has submitted his representation on 31.05.2013, the respondent-authority has not redressed the grievance of the petitioner. 6. From the facts disclosed in the writ petition, I find that the petitioner was retained on duty in the State of Jharkhand till 31.05.2013, when the respondent no. The learned counsel has further submitted that, though the petitioner has submitted his representation on 31.05.2013, the respondent-authority has not redressed the grievance of the petitioner. 6. From the facts disclosed in the writ petition, I find that the petitioner was retained on duty in the State of Jharkhand till 31.05.2013, when the respondent no. 4 finally relieved him from duty. On the same day the petitioner has handed over the charge. The respondents have not brought on record any incident of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Though a letter has been issued on 20.06.2013 for regularization of service of the petitioner for the month of April and May 2013, i.e. till 20.05.2013 and payment of salary for the said period, however, in view of the fact that the petitioner was finally relieved on 31.05.2013, I do not find any reason why the service of the petitioner would not be regularized till 31.05.2013 and not paid salary for the said period. I am also of the opinion that the respondents are not justified in not issuing the Last Pay Slip (L.P.C.) to the petitioner, in the absence of which the petitioner is not able to draw his salary. The impugned order dated 20.05.2013 is hereby quashed to the extent that it would not be treated as if the petitioner would get salary only upto March, 2013. The petitioner would be entitled for his salary till 31.05.2013 and he would be deemed to be on duty till 31.05.2013. Last Pay Slip (L.P.C.) would be issued within a period of two weeks from the production of a copy of this order. 7. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties.