JUDGMENT : Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Neither the counsel for the petitioner is appearing, nor any prayer has been made online or otherwise seeking adjournment of the present case. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Rohan Kashyap is present. He has assisted this court for the purposes of final disposal of the present case and has drawn the attention of this court on the relevant materials on record which has been relied upon by the petitioner as well as those which has been relied upon by the respondents. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For quashing the order contained in Memo No. 912 dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Jharkhand (Annexure-20 to the writ application) by which the claim of the petitioner for regularization and payment of salary for the period 20.03.1997 to 17.06.2001 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was absent unauthorizedly. (ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay the entire salary along with interest for the period 20.03.97 to 17.06.2001 as the petitioner has no fault or absent because the petitioner has not been allowed to join rather, he has been continuing in the place of service and as such, the petitioner is also entitled to salary along with interest.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that though the petitioner had moved this court twice earlier; first time in CWJC No. 3683 of 1998 (R) seeking direction upon the respondents to pay salary from November, 1995 onwards and also for quashing the order dated 20.03.1997 wherein it was held that the petitioner is not entitled for salary. Said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2001 enabling the petitioner to make his grievance before the appropriate authority showing his entitlement to salary and it was observed that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in the writ application. The learned counsel has also referred to the order passed in L.P.A. No. 82 of 2001 arising out of the aforesaid writ petition which was dismissed vide order dated 02.03.2001 and submission of learned counsel was also considered that the petitioner herein, is still at large and had not been given any appropriate posting. The learned counsel has also referred to the order passed in L.P.A. No. 82 of 2001 arising out of the aforesaid writ petition which was dismissed vide order dated 02.03.2001 and submission of learned counsel was also considered that the petitioner herein, is still at large and had not been given any appropriate posting. Under such circumstances, it was observed that if the petitioner is still in service, he was permitted him to make representation to the competent authority in the Health Department within four weeks for his appropriate posting. Second time, the petitioner filed W.P. (S) No. 5736 of 2001 challenging the order dated 22.06.1999 and 14.06.2001. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.03.2013. In the said writ petition, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claim of the petitioner. It was stated in the counter affidavit that once the order of transfer dated 20.03.97 was passed, the petitioner was duty bound to join his posting, but the petitioner did not join and the plea/stand taken by the petitioner was not accepted by the authorities who passed orders dated 22.06.99 and 14.06.2001. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said orders and filed aforesaid writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5736 of 2001 which was disposed of observing that, from order dated 22.06.1999, it did not appear that period of absence has been treated as period of unauthorized leave and it simply recorded that petitioner would be paid salary only from the date of joining. This court ultimately disposed of the writ petition by observing that from the order dated 14.06.2001 it did not appear that it has been passed after considering the order dated 22.06.99 which was passed by the Director, Health Services, Patna. It was also observed by this court that in the order dated 22.06.99 that the period of the absence of the petitioner from duty after 20.03.1997 has not been treated as unauthorized absence and therefore order dated 14.06.2001 required reconsideration. The petitioner was permitted to make representation to the respondent No. 2 within a period of six weeks and the respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the claim of the petitioner within next six weeks by a speaking order. 6. The petitioner was permitted to make representation to the respondent No. 2 within a period of six weeks and the respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the claim of the petitioner within next six weeks by a speaking order. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the order passed by respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-19 to the writ petition and he has placed the order impugned which is dated 16.04.2014 and submits that the same is a well-reasoned order considering the entire material and facts and circumstances of the case and calls for no interference by this court. 7. Upon perusal of the impugned order contained in Annexure-19 it appears that the same has been passed in compliance of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 5736 of 2001. The impugned order reveals that the grievance of the petitioner was with regard to regularizing his services for the period 20.03.1997 to 17.06.2001 coupled with payment of salary. The impugned order further reveals that the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 31.12.1996 from the Chandwa, Palamau to Deoghar and he was relieved vide order dated 11.03.97 and in spite of the fact that he did not give charge, he was relieved on 20.03.1997. The impugned order further refers to memo No. 182 (11) dated 22.06.1999 mentioning that the petitioner was not doing duty anywhere during the period from 20.03.1997 and the Authority at Chandwa (from where the petitioner was already transferred vide order dated 31.12.1996) did not accept the joining of the petitioner. 8. The impugned order refers to another letter No. 117 dated 15.01.2014 indicating that the petitioner was not posted in Deoghar during the period from 20.03.1997 to 13.06.2001 although the petitioner was transferred and relieved from Chandwa, Palamu to Deoghar vide order dated 31.12.1996 and 20.03.1997 respectively. Another letter dated 14.06.2001 was issued wherein the petitioner was shown to be absent unauthorizedly from 20.03.1997 and was directed to be posted in Primary Health Centre, Sarath, Deoghar and pursuant to such order, the petitioner joined on 19.06.2001. Thus, the impugned order records a finding that the petitioner was found to be unauthorizedly absent during the period from 20.03.97 to 18.06.01 and was consequently denied salary for the intervening period on the principle of “no work no pay” and the period has been directed to be treated as “break in service”. Thus, the impugned order records a finding that the petitioner was found to be unauthorizedly absent during the period from 20.03.97 to 18.06.01 and was consequently denied salary for the intervening period on the principle of “no work no pay” and the period has been directed to be treated as “break in service”. This court is of the view that the impugned order dated 16.04.2014 has been passed after considering a large number of materials/communications including the order dated 22.06.1999 which was passed by the Director, Health Services, Patna. The impugned order also considers the plea raised by the petitioner and the same has been rejected by citing cogent reasons. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, the present writ petition is dismissed. 9. So far as interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1521 of 2021 is concerned, the petitioner has prayed for fixation of his provisional pension, gratuity etc. as the petitioner had superannuated on 30.09.2020. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the response to the same has been filed and specific stand has been taken that all the retiral benefits to which the petitioner is entitled has already been sanctioned on 24.09.2021 and it might have been released and if not released there is no legal impediment in release of the same amount. 10. Since the pension payment order has already been issued as per the counter affidavit to the interlocutory application, in case the pension has not yet been released in favour of the petitioner, the same is directed to be released forthwith. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1521 of 2021 is disposed of.