JUDGMENT : S.N. PATNAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with following prayers:– (i) For quashing the order No. 356(4) dated 02.05.2013 (Annexure-21) issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, by which a communication has been made to the petitioner that the respondents-authorities have taken decision to break the services of the petitioner in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008. (ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents-authorities to count the period in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008 for calculating the pensionary benefits of the petitioner after his regularization. (iii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents-authorities to pay all the retiral benefits calculating the same after counting the period in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer under the State Government and vide notification No. 386(2) dated 28.06.2006, he was transferred from Hazaribagh to Palamu as a Medical Officer. Upon receiving such order, he submitted his joining in the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamu at Daltonganj on 28.06.2006. Thereafter, on 29.06.2006 he went to Hazaribagh for shifting his accommodation to Palamu, where he found his mother in ailing condition. He had requested to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer vide his representation dated 26.07.2006, for extending his leave till 26.07.2006. The petitioner had further requested the respondent-authorities to extend his leave till 01.03.2007. During the said period, while on treatment, her mother had expired and after performing her last rituals, the petitioner gave his joining on 02.03.2007 in the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamu but the Civil Surgeon vide his letter No. 253 dated 02.03.2007 had directed the petitioner to submit his joining to the Headquarter at Ranchi and accordingly, he had been relieved, which is also evident from the said letter itself. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner has given his joining at the Headquarter at Ranchi, which fact is also evident from his letter dated 08.03.2007. Inspite of repeated requests made by the petitioner for his joining at an appropriate place, no order has been passed by the respondents-authorities. Subsequently, the respondents-authorities vide its notification No. 386(2) dated 28.06.2008, transferred him as the Principal, Training Centre, Hazaribagh. The petitioner submitted his joining as Principal, Training Centre, Hazaribagh, on 30.06.2008, which is evident from the charge-report itself. Inspite of repeated requests made by the petitioner for his joining at an appropriate place, no order has been passed by the respondents-authorities. Subsequently, the respondents-authorities vide its notification No. 386(2) dated 28.06.2008, transferred him as the Principal, Training Centre, Hazaribagh. The petitioner submitted his joining as Principal, Training Centre, Hazaribagh, on 30.06.2008, which is evident from the charge-report itself. Thereafter, vide his representation dated 18.05.2009, the petitioner requested the Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare for regularization of period between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008. The petitioner also represented before the respondent No. 2 on 22.06.2009 for regularization of service of the period for which he was waiting for posting i.e. in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008. On 30.09.2009, the petitioner has also represented before the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh for regularization of his services for the aforesaid period. On 30.09.2009, the petitioner represented before the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare for regularizing his services in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008. 5. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare has written a letter on 02.09.2009 to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh intimating therein to inform the petitioner to forward his representation through proper channel. After such letter, the petitioner again represented on 04.12.2010 before the Principal Secretary for regularization of the period between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008. The Regional Deputy Director vide memo dated 10.04.2010 has written a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare recommending for regularization of period in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008, since the period spent by the petitioner was on account of waiting for posting. When no heed was given to the petitioner’s several representations, he preferred a writ before this Court being W.P.(S). No. 2260 of 2012, which was disposed of on 03.09.2012 with a direction that the petitioner shall make a representation which shall be decided by the respondent No. 2 by a speaking order. 6. When the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, the petitioner made his representation before the respondents-authorities and requested them to consider his case for regularization of his service for the period in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008. In the meantime, the respondents-Department vide its order No. 96(2) dated 02.02.2009 has regularized the services of petitioner for the period 29.06.2006 to 09.01.2007 and the period 10.01.2007 to 07.03.2007. In the meantime, the respondents-Department vide its order No. 96(2) dated 02.02.2009 has regularized the services of petitioner for the period 29.06.2006 to 09.01.2007 and the period 10.01.2007 to 07.03.2007. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare wrote a letter to the Civil Surgeon, Palamu asking his opinion on the matter of regularizing the services of the petitioner for the period in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008, upon which, he has recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization. Thereafter, on 05.01.2012, the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services had written a letter to the Principal Secretary for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services for the period in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner has made an application seeking his voluntary retirement under the provisions of Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Service Code and the same been accepted by the competent authority, which fact has also been communicated to the petitioner vide order contained in memo No. 290(3) dated 12.02.2013 and the petitioner had been superannuated w.e.f. 19.02.2013. In the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Court, the Principal Secretary finally passed an order contained in memo No. 356(4) dated 02.05.2013, by which it has been informed to the petitioner that the period in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008 shall not be counted in the matter of computing pensionary benefits of the petitioner, since the said period is with respect to unauthorized absence of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajiv Ranjan assisted by Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate, strenuously urges that the petitioner has wrongly been deprived of the pensionary benefits of the period of his absence. It is submitted that while passing the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits, the respondents-authorities had not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was forcefully waited for his posting for the period in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008 in the Headquarter and therefore, it is not a case of unauthorized absence. Learned counsel further submits that before considering the said period as breakage in service, the petitioner should have been noticed during his employment but no such notice was ever been given to the petitioner to explain about the alleged unauthorized absence, which is violation of Articles 14 and 311 of the Constitution of India. 9. Learned counsel further submits that before considering the said period as breakage in service, the petitioner should have been noticed during his employment but no such notice was ever been given to the petitioner to explain about the alleged unauthorized absence, which is violation of Articles 14 and 311 of the Constitution of India. 9. The action of the respondents-authorities for issuance of impugned order dated 02.05.2013 is illegal, void, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the respondents, after retirement of the petitioner, cannot take a particular period as break in service. It is further submitted that the period in question is admittedly spent by the petitioner on account of waiting for his posting, which is evident from the various letters issued by the State Government and for that, the petitioner cannot be said to be unauthorized absentee. The action of the respondents is in violation of principle of natural justice, since no any opportunity was given to the petitioner for explaining his case before passing the impugned order. 10. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the instant writ application is not maintainable in the eyes of law and liable to the rejected. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner remained willfully absent from duty on one or another reason, hence, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer directed him to submit his joining in the office of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Ranchi vide his letter dated 02.03.2007. In this regard, it is submitted that the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer is not a competent authority to relieve the petitioner and the petitioner is not bound to obey the illegal and wrong order of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamu. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as the Principal, Training Centre, Hazaribagh. It is further submitted that the petitioner, after submission of his joining at the Headquarter on 08.03.2007, remained absent till his posting at Hazaribagh on 28.06.2008. In the meantime, near about five meetings of the Establishment Committee were held for transfer and posting but the petitioner has not been posted anywhere since he was not present at the Headquarter at the relevant time. In the meantime, near about five meetings of the Establishment Committee were held for transfer and posting but the petitioner has not been posted anywhere since he was not present at the Headquarter at the relevant time. Thereafter, the petitioner with the connivance of some officials, managed to get his choice posting in the month of June, 2008, which goes to show that the petitioner was never interested to work at Palamu. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred writ application, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondents-authorities, who shall examine his claim afresh and pass appropriate order in this regard. Upon obtaining such order, the petitioner filed representation, which was taken into consideration and it was observed that the action of the petitioner was not found in accordance with the established norms and service rules. Thereafter, vide letter dated 08.03.2013, the respondents had asked for an explanation from the petitioner that why the period spent by him as waiting for posting be not treated as unauthorized absence from duty. The reply submitted by the petitioner was examined and it was found unsatisfactory. It is therefore decided that the said period be treated as unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duty and this will not be counted for pension purpose. 12. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The respondents-authorities have illegally and arbitrarily treated the period in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008, as period of unauthorized absence and not to be counted for computing the pensionary benefits. It is an admitted fact that no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner neither any charge-sheet was served against the period said to be of unauthorized absence. The principles of natural justice was not adhered to before coming to a finding of unauthorized absence. It was the respondents-authorities, who were responsible for keeping the petitioner in the corridor of posting, as he was never posted anywhere in the said period. It is not a case in which petitioner was absent for the said period willfully. If the petitioner could have been posted somewhere then the question of not working in that period could not have been arisen. It is not a case in which petitioner was absent for the said period willfully. If the petitioner could have been posted somewhere then the question of not working in that period could not have been arisen. The posting was in the hands of the Department. There was no fault on part of the petitioner. The respondents themselves kept him waiting for posting and hence, the said period cannot be treated as period unauthorized absence. Rather, it has to be counted for pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, this Court is of the considered view that the period between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008 has to be counted in the matter of computing pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 14. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. The order No. 356(4) dated 02.05.2013 (Annexure-21), issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to pay all the retiral benefits calculating the same after taking the period in between 08.03.2007 to 29.06.2008 for pensionary benefits. Needless to say that the entire exercise has to be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.