ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the part of order dated 8.8.2017 as contained in Memo No. 472 (4), issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, by which, in compliance of direction of this Court in WPS No. 3439 of 2013, the service of the petitioner was regularized for the period 8.3.2007 to 29.6.2008 and the same was counted for pensionary benefits of the petitioner, but the said period was treated to be extraordinary leave of the petitioner. 2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the said period could not have been adjusted against the extraordinary leave and the petitioner is entitled to get his salary for the entire period. 3. This is the second round of litigation. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer under the State on 22.3.1979. He was transferred from Hazaribagh to Palamau as a Medical Officer and he joined in the Office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical officer, Palamau at Daltonganj on 28.6.2006. On 29.6.2006 he went to Hazaribagh for shifting his belongings and accommodation but he found his mother in ailing condition. He requested the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer for extending his leave till 26.7.2006. Thereafter, again an application was filed for seeking extension of leave till 1.3.2007. During this intervening period, unfortunately, the mother of this petitioner expired. After performing all rituals, the petitioner gave his joining on 2.3.2007 in the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamau. The Civil Surgeon vide letter No. 253 dated 2.3.2007 then directed the petitioner to submit his joining at the Headquarter at Ranchi and thus, he was relieved. The petitioner subsequently gave his joining at the Headquarter at Ranchi. No order thereafter was passed in spite of repeated request made by the petitioner to post him at a particular place. Ultimately, on 28.6.2008, the petitioner was posted as Principal, Training Centre, Hazaribagh, where he joined on 30.6.2008. Thus, the period between 8.3.2007 (the date when the petitioner gave his joining at Headquarter) till 29.6.2008 (the date when the petitioner was transferred to join as Principal, Training Centre, Hazaribagh) is in dispute. The petitioner took voluntary retirement on 19.2.2013. The respondent authorities treated the aforesaid period as break in service. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being WP(S) No. 3439 of 2013. The petitioner took voluntary retirement on 19.2.2013. The respondent authorities treated the aforesaid period as break in service. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being WP(S) No. 3439 of 2013. In that writ petition, the petitioner prayed to regularize the aforesaid period and it was also prayed that the period be treated for the purpose of pensionery benefits. This Court heard the writ petition, which was opposed by the State. Ultimately, vide order dated 20.6.2017, the writ petition was allowed with a direction that the period between 8.3.2007 to 29.6.2008 be counted for computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Further, a direction was given to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand to calculate the retiral benefits after taking the aforesaid period for all practical purposes and also for pensionary benefits. Consequent upon the aforesaid order, the respondent concerned passed the order impugned. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the period between 8.3.2007 to 29.6.2008 was regularized but as an extraordinary leave. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the grant of extraordinary leave, preferred this writ petition. He claims salary for the aforesaid period. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that by no stretch of imagination, the aforesaid period could have been treated as extraordinary leave. He further submits that the extraordinary leave is granted in such a situation, where there is no other leave admissible to the petitioner. He further submits that in this case there was no question of grant of any leave, as the petitioner did not seek any leave. He submits that once the Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh, directed the petitioner to give his joining at Headquarter and the petitioner had complied the said order, he should have been posted. On joining at the Headquarter, he was kept awaiting for posting. He further submits that since the petitioner was kept waiting for posting for the entire period between 8.3.2007 to 29.6.2008, he is entitled to get his salary and it cannot be said that the petitioner was on leave for the said period. He submits that the entire consideration by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare is bad. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment and the order dated 16.1.2013 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 7531 of 2012. He submits that the entire consideration by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare is bad. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment and the order dated 16.1.2013 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 7531 of 2012. 6. Counsel for the State submits that as per direction of this Court in WPS No. 3439 of 2013, the impugned order has been passed and the period from 8.3.2007 to 29.6.2008 has been duly regularized. He submits that as there was no leave remaining in the account of this petitioner, the said period was treated as extraordinary leave. He also submits that the petitioner gave his joining at Headquarter, but he was never present in the Headquarter, thus he is not entitled to get any benefit and therefore, he is not entitled for the salary of the aforesaid period. 7. After hearing the parties, I find that the facts as observed and recorded in para 4 of this order, are admitted and the same has been crystallized by the order of this Court in the earlier round of litigation in WPS No. 3439 of 2013. From the aforesaid facts, it is admitted that the petitioner gave his joining at Headquarter on 8.3.2007. It is also admitted that thereafter he was not posted at any place. It is the contention of the State that the petitioner thereafter remained unauthorizedly absent for the entire said period but surprisingly, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent. Further, if the petitioner had remained unauthorized absent, notice should have been issued to the petitioner and he should have been proceeded against departmentally, but this action was also not taken by the respondent authorities. Counsel for the petitioner placed before me his posting order dated 29.6.2008. While going through the posting order dated 29.6.2008, I find that against the column “present placing of posting” it has been mentioned as “waiting for positing”. This clearly suggests that the respondent authorities themselves had not posted the petitioner and kept him waiting for positing. Only on 29.6.2008, the petitioner was posted. When the joining of the petitioner was accepted, it was the duty of the employer to post the petitioner, soon. Admittedly, the petitioner was not posted. This clearly suggests that the respondent authorities themselves had not posted the petitioner and kept him waiting for positing. Only on 29.6.2008, the petitioner was posted. When the joining of the petitioner was accepted, it was the duty of the employer to post the petitioner, soon. Admittedly, the petitioner was not posted. As the petitioner was not posted by the respondent authorities, he could not join at any place rather he remained in the Headquarter, awaiting for future posting. Thus, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, on admitted failure of the respondent authorities of not posting the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be penalized nor his salary can be withheld. In absence of any evidence that the petitioner remained absent from the entire period, as claimed by the respondent authorities, this Court is not in a position to accept such contention. 8. In view of what has been held above, this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, part of the order dated 8.8.2017 as contained in Memo No. 472 (4), issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, by which, the period of 8.3.2007 to 29.6.2008 was treated to be extraordinary leave of the petitioner, is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to pay the salary and other allowance of the petitioner for the aforesaid period treating him to be in service, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.