JUDGMENT : (S.N. Pathak, J.) Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner, who is the wife of deceased employee, Anand Kerketta has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents for regularizing the period of absence from service of her husband from 08.11.2006 to 25.05.2009 and from 27.05.2009 to 31.05.2014, which has been treated as break in service by the respondent. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to release all consequential benefits treating the service of petitioner’s deceased husband as without break as he has served the department for 25 long years. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the husband of petitioner, was initially appointed as Road Roller Khalasi vide letter No. 8308 dated 16.11.1979, issued from the office of the Chief Engineer, R.E.O., Bihar, Patna and pursuant thereto, he gave his joining on 20.02.1980 and was posted at Garhwa Sub-division. Thereafter, in view of letter dated 05.05.2004 of the Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi, the husband of the petitioner Anand Kerketta (since deceased) was considered for regularization of his service and accordingly, a letter dated 27.05.2004 was issued by the Superintending Engineer, R.E.O. Work Division, Dumka to the petitioner asking him to produce relevant documents for consideration of his case, which the petitioner duly submitted before the said Authority. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer, R.E.O., Work Circle, Hazaribagh issued order contained in memo No. 822 dated 27.09.2006 by which the petitioner’s husband was absorbed in regular service to the post of Driver at Chatra in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-75-1950-80-4590 along with D.A. and other allowances as payable from time to time by the Government. On receipt of the aforesaid order, the husband of petitioner submitted his joining before the Executive Engineer, Works Division, Chatra on 18.10.2006 but in spite of giving joining at Chatra, the salary has not been paid since 2005 and therefore he gave representation on 27.02.2007 and 02.02.2008 to the Chief Engineer, R.E.O., Ranchi with request to release the salary but the same went into vain. 4. The respondents have taken a plea that husband of petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly since 08.11.2006, hence, his claim for payment of salary and other benefits is not acceptable, whereas the fact remains that petitioner went to give his joining on 18.10.2006, which has not been accepted and the husband of petitioner was permitted to work on the post of Jeep Driver at Chatra. So there is no laches on the part of her husband in remaining out of service. However, to his utter shock and surprise, the petitioner’s husband received speaking order contained in memo No. 417 dated 19.07.2019, issued by the Superintending Engineer, REO, Work Circle, Hazaribagh, whereby it has been informed that on the basis and available evidences, it appears that there has been a break in service from 08.11.2006 to 25.05.2009 and from 27.05.2009 to 31.05.2014 and since his regular appointment to the post of Jeep Driver was done on a temporary and provisional basis and due to above break in service, the prayer of petitioner for service confirmation and salary, etc. for the above period cannot be entertained. 5. It is the specific case of petitioner that her husband has served the Department from 20.02.1980 to 31.05.2014 i.e. more than 34 years with full devotion and satisfaction to the respondent-Department but inspite of the same his prayer has not been entertained. It is further stated that due to starvation and miserable financial condition, the husband of petitioner, Anand Kerketta died on 03.10.2019, leaving behind his wife (present petitioner) and two sons and three daughters. After death of her husband, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities for redressal of her grievances but till date no action has been taken on her said request. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously urges that respondents cannot be allowed to harass the petitioner for the laches and delay on their part and they are duty bound to pay the due salary and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner who is the widow of late Anand Kerketta, who was superannuated from post of Jeep Driver on 31.05.2014 and died on 03.10.2019, is entitled to get death-cum-retiral benefits, arrears of salary, family pension, etc. on account of death of her husband. Learned counsel further argues that the action of the respondents in withholding the salary of late husband of petitioner since 2005 till the date of his superannuation is not at all justified and tenable in law. on account of death of her husband. Learned counsel further argues that the action of the respondents in withholding the salary of late husband of petitioner since 2005 till the date of his superannuation is not at all justified and tenable in law. Learned counsel further argues that not paying the entire death-cum-retiral benefits and other benefits amounts to denial of livelihood of petitioner as well as dependents of the deceased employee and also violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents by vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of petitioner was appointed as Jeep Driver at Chatra Office vide order dated 27.09.2006 and the husband of petitioner submitted his joining on 18.10.2016. As per the attendance record, the husband of petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 08.11.2006 to 25.09.2009 and again from 27.09.2009 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.05.2014. The petitioner was issued several show-cause notices for unauthorized absence in the aforesaid period, however, the husband of petitioner did not submit reply to any of the notices nor gave any clarification for remaining absent from duty without any authorization. Learned counsel submits that due to aforesaid reason, it cannot be denied that there was break in service of Anand Kerketta from 18.11.2006 to 25.09.2009 and from 27.05.2009 to 31.05.2014 and that he worked on regular post (on contractual basis) for 21+1 i.e. total 22 days at Chatra Officer. Hence, the case of petitioner does not fall within the zone of consideration and as such, rightly been rejected by the respondent in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 62 of 2018. 8. However, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that so far prayer of petitioner regarding payment of arrears of salary and other dues is concerned, as per attendance and payment records, the salary for the entire period for which Anand Kerketta had worked has already been paid to him. No. 62 of 2018. 8. However, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that so far prayer of petitioner regarding payment of arrears of salary and other dues is concerned, as per attendance and payment records, the salary for the entire period for which Anand Kerketta had worked has already been paid to him. It has been further submitted that for payment of other dues and pay-revision, the respondents are taking sincere steps to collect all the records of payment and admissible dues to the petitioner and since the husband of petitioner had worked at different office at Chhatarpur, Dumka and Chatra therefore, it takes some time to obtain all the necessary records and finalize the same. Learned counsel further argues that upon receipt of all the records regarding the service payments of husband of petitioner, the entire admissible dues will be paid to the petitioner at the earliest. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of petitioner deserves consideration. The husband of petitioner was kept out of posting because of the fault on the part of the respondents-authorities, as no vacancy was available at his place of posting and hence, he could not join there. As such, there was no fault of the petitioner’s husband for remaining out of service as he was waiting for posting. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable to this Court neither it is tenable in the eyes of law as every endeavors were made by the husband of petitioner for joining his duty. As no fault lies with the husband of petitioner, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same. It is also not in dispute that the husband of petitioner served the Department from 20.02.1980 to 31.05.2014 i.e. more than 34 years with full devotion and satisfaction to the respondent-Department but inspite of that the respondents have not taken sympathetic consideration of the same and denied the legitimate claim of the petitioner due to which petitioner along with her family members have been made to face financial crunch. 10. 10. However, in view of the aforesaid observations and in view of fair submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that the case of the petitioner is under consideration, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner taking into consideration the prevalent rules and guidelines and thereafter pass appropriate reasoned order keeping into account that it was the fault of the respondents in not accepting the joining of petitioner’s husband and the petitioner cannot be held liable for remaining out of service 11. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. 12. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits as prayed, in view of the aforesaid observations and if there is no other legal impediment, the same shall be extended to her within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.