Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 992 (PAT)

Neeta Agrawal v. State Of Bihar

2014-09-12

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER : 1. This is an application seeking direction to the Respondents to treat the period 23.03.2005 to 06.06.2006 as waiting for posting. It is specific case of the petitioner that she was transferred from Lady Elgin Hospital, Gaya to Rejendra Nagar, Patna vide Notification dated 31.12.2003. 2. She is said to have handed over the charge at Gaya on 22.03.2005 and joined the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna on 24.03.2005. She was, however, not given any place of posting and she was informed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna that posting would be done after getting consent from the Department. She waited thereafter. The Civil Surgeon sought consent from the Department through Letter No. 6357 dated 07.09.2005, after 5 ½ months of her joining. After eight months, thereafter, the Department sent the required consent vide letter dated 30.05.2006. She accordingly joined the transferred post on 06.06.2006 pursuant to an order dated 30.05.2006. 3. For the period from 23.03.2005 to 06.06.2006 she kept on waiting for an order of posting. 4. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 7855 of 2009 which came to be disposed of by an order dated 13.07.2009 directing the Civil Surgeon and Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar to dispose of petitioner’s representation and consider this period for the purpose of regularization and payment of salary as per the rule. 5. By the impugned order, the said period has been regularized by treating the period to be on paid leave. The petitioner has a grievance that the said period should not have been treated to be on leave rather should have been treated to be on duty as the petitioner was waiting for posting during that period. 6. By an order dated 13.04.2011passed in this case, the Respondents State of Bihar were directed to file counter affidavit. It is stated by learned counsel for the State Respondents that a counter affidavit has been filed but the same is not there on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that copy of the said counter affidavit was served upon her. It is stated by learned counsel for the State Respondents that a counter affidavit has been filed but the same is not there on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that copy of the said counter affidavit was served upon her. So that there may not be any further delay in disposal of present writ application filed in the year 2010, I have taken the copy of counter affidavit from the learned counsel for the State with the consent of the Petitioner, said to have been filed in this case, for the purpose of adjudication of the present matter. 7. From the said counter affidavit which has been sworn by the Deputy Director, Health Department, Government of Bihar, it appears that there is no denial of the fact that during the period in question the petitioner was waiting for posting. There is no averment in the counter affidavit that the petitioner kept herself away from discharging of her official duties out of her own will. In such circumstance, the said period, in my opinion will have to be treated on duty. 8. This application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 12.01.2010 (Annexure-1) is quashed. 9. The Respondents are directed to treat the entire period between 23.03.2005 to 06.06.2006 as on duty and pay to her all salaries and allowances. The Respondents are directed to calculate the salary and allowances for the said period within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pay to the petitioner all arrears accordingly within a period of one month thereafter. 10. This application is allowed.