JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order as contained in Memo No. 464 dated 14.07.2012 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition) passed by the Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand; wherein the claim of the petitioner with respect to payment of salary for the period with effect from 01.01.2008 to 30.06.2008, 07.09.2008 to 14.10.2008 and 03.11.2008 to 31.12.2008 has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for releasing the arrears of Special Leave for 273 days on account of Medical Leave. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Matric Trained) on 07.08.1971. During the service period the petitioner was transferred to various places. The petitioner retired from services on 30.06.2010. The petitioner had made an application and produced the Attendance Register to show that the petitioner was regularly present. The District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa vide letter dated 22.09.2008 had directed the Headmaster, Middle School, Budhigora, Chakradharpur for payment of salary of the petitioner from January, 2008 within one week. Thereafter, the petitioner after retirement from services had made representations vide letter dated 25.05.2010, 22.07.2010, 30.11.2010 and 13.01.2011 before the authorities concerned for payment of salary for the period from 01.01.2008 to 30.06.2008, 07.09.2008 to 14.10.2008 and 03.11.2008 to 31.12.2008. All these representations were preferred by the petitioner before his retirement. The petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 194 of 2012 for payment of salary for the period as indicated in the representations dated 25.05.2010, 22.07.2010, 30.11.2010 and 13.01.2011. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.01.2012 in the following terms: - “1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that suffice it will be for disposal of this writ petition, if a direction is given to respondent no. 3 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioner, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law and within stipulated time, as given by this Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that they have no much objection, if such a direction is given to respondent no. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that they have no much objection, if such a direction is given to respondent no. 3 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioner, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law and within stipulated time, as given by this Court. 3. In view of these submissions, I hereby direct respondent no.3 [Director (Primary Education), Human Resources Development Department, Ranchi] to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioner, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law/rules, regulations, policies and Government enforceable orders, applicable to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative. 4. If the decision is taken in favour of the present petitioner, necessary benefits will be extended to him within further period of four weeks, thereafter. 5. In view of the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.” Pursuant to the order dated 24.01.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 194 of 2012 the petitioner preferred representation dated 23.05.2012 before the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa for compliance of the order. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department (Presently School Education and Literacy Department), Government of Jharkhand has issued an impugned order dated 14.07.2012 wherein the claim of the petitioner for release of the salary for the period from 01.01.2008 to 30.06.2008, 07.09.2008 to 14.10.2008 and 03.11.2008 to 31.12.2008 has been rejected. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there was no proof of the attendance in the school for the aforesaid period and for the said period the salary cannot be release on the ground of no work no pay. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the Attendance Register which is annexed as Annexure-8, Page-32 of the writ petition showing the proof of presence for the claim period. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed their Counter Affidavit in which they have stated at paragraphs-12, 14 and 15 as follows:- “12. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the Attendance Register which is annexed as Annexure-8, Page-32 of the writ petition showing the proof of presence for the claim period. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed their Counter Affidavit in which they have stated at paragraphs-12, 14 and 15 as follows:- “12. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph- 7 and 8, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner has not been rightly paid the salary for the relevant period and it is not correct to state that on the pretext of non-availability of fund the salary was not paid to the petitioner. So far as statement made in respect Annexure-1 of the writ application are concerned, it is submitted that the same is matter of record, hence, required no comment. 14. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph-14 and 15, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that after considering the material available on the record and hearing that the petitioner rightly held that the petitioner has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. The Headmaster of Middle School, Budigora, Chakradharpur by his letter dated 14.04.2012 that the petitioner was absent without any information from school and rightly held that the claim of the petitioner was acceptable. So far as the statement made in respect of Annexure - 8 of the writ application is concerned, it is submitted that the Attendance Register, (Annexure-8 of the writ application) is a duplicate Attendance Register, opened and prepared by the petitioner himself, and the same is not the actual Attendance Register, opened and maintained by the concerned authority kept in the School. The actual and real Attendance Register, opened and maintained by the concerned authority and kept in the School has been duly inspected by the Block Extension Officer, Chakradhapur. 15. The actual and real Attendance Register, opened and maintained by the concerned authority and kept in the School has been duly inspected by the Block Extension Officer, Chakradhapur. 15. That it is humbly stated and submitted that on perusal of the Annexure-8 of the writ application and Annexure-A of the present counter affidavit, it is apparent prepared that the petitioner has prepared the Attendance Register (Annexure -8 of the writ application) on his own accord and the signature of the concerned Inspecting Officer is missing and absent whereas the Attendance Register is actual and real Attendance Register, opened and maintained by the Headmaster, Middle school, Budigora, Chakradhapur and kept in School, and bears the signature of the Block Extension Officer, Chakradhapur who is Inspecting Officer of the area. It is also apparent from Annexure-A of the present Counter Affidavit, that the petitioner was absent from the school for the relevant period without any information, and he is not entitled to get the salary of the aforesaid period.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder to the Counter Affidavit, inter-alia stating therein at paragraphs-2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as follows:- “2. That, it is stated that in the Counter Affidavit In para-14, the District Superintendent Education, Singhbhum West has said that the claim of the Petitioner has righlty been rejected as Headmaster of Middle School, Budigora, Chakardharpur by his letter dated 14.04.2012 has stated that the Petitioner was absent without any information from the School. In this regard it is stated that Budigora is a different School and the Headmaster of the School has no concern with the attendance and the absentee submitted by the Petitioner was final and the Headmaster of Middle School Budigora is only to pass the pay bill and he has no authority to stop the bill or see what is the of content. 3. That it is stated that the Petitioner was the Headmaster where he was working and he was the competent person to prepare the absentee, which is final, and after that the absentee was forwarded to the Headmaster of the Middle School, Budigora, who is also the drawing and disbursing officer and such he has no right to attest/certify or to change or to make any comment on that document. His duty is to forward the bill after preparing and he has to pay the bill on the basis of Clause-8 'Kha' as per letter No.-9/Wa3- 0694/80/shi 520, issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of Bihar, dated 27.03.1987, which has been accepted by the Govt. of Jharkhand. 4. That it is stated that the attendance register annexed by the Respondent is antedated as all the verification has been done on one day i.e. 14.04.2012. 5. That the absentee prepaid in the year 2008 from which it will be apparent that the Petitioner was the Headmaster and Sri Banbihari Mahto who was an Assistant Teacher and the master-role of the absentee was prepared on the basis of the attendance register which has been annexed in the writ application as Annexure-8, in which the signature of both the teachers is very much available but the attendance register annexed in the counter affidavit shows the signature of only Banbihari Mahto. 6. That it is further stated that the Petitioner was Head Master of Primary School, Pusalota and the Middle School, Budigora is totally a different school and the Headmaster of that School is only drawing and disbursing officer and such the claim of the Petitioner cannot be rejected as the absentee sent by him is final and on that basis the Petitioner is entitled for the payment of salary from January 2008 to 30 June 2008, from 07.09.2008 to 14.10.2008 and 03.11.2008 to 31.12.2008.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has filed a Supplementary Counter Affidavit wherein the State Government has stated that during the period from 01.01.2008 to 30.06.2008, 07.09.2008 to 04.10.2008 and 03.11.2008 to 31.12.2008; the petitioner did not mark his attendance. Further it has been stated in paragraph-9 that the petitioner has not submitted his proof of presence in the school to the headmaster-cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer and the petitioner did not claim salary for the said period. The petitioner after his retirement has submitted the application for payment of salary. It has been categorically stated at paragraph-9 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit that since, the District Superintendent of Education, was not aware of the fact, hence, no Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner after his retirement has submitted the application for payment of salary. It has been categorically stated at paragraph-9 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit that since, the District Superintendent of Education, was not aware of the fact, hence, no Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Further it was stated at paragraph-11 that the petitioner had not informed the District Superintendent of Education from the year 2008 to the date of retirement and the petitioner has submitted the representation after his retirement. 7. Thus, from the averments made in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit the respondent- State has admitted the fact at paragraph-9 that no Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on account of the fact that the District Superintendent of Education was not aware about the petitioner absence. It is well settled that if the petitioner was found absent from the duties; the Respondents could have initiated the Departmental Proceeding and in absence of initiation of any proceedings, the arrears of salary cannot be withheld. It was never the case of the respondents about the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duties. 8. The stand of the respondents with respect to the fact that the petitioner has not submitted his proof of presence in the School falsifies from the fact that on perusal of Annexure-2 which is a letter dated 22.09.2008 issued by the District Superintendent of Education in which it has been categorically mentioned that the petitioner has produced the copy of the attendance and on perusal of the same it transpires that the petitioner was regularly marking his attendance. 9. It further transpires from perusal of the impugned order that the respondents have not made out a case of forgery and the respondent authorities have supplemented the reasons in the Counter Affidavit. It is well settled that the validity of any order must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. 10. In the present case, the reasons mentioned in the impugned order has been improved / supplemented through the affidavit. It is well settled that the validity of any order must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. 10. In the present case, the reasons mentioned in the impugned order has been improved / supplemented through the affidavit. Moreover, the District Superintendent of Education by letter dated 22.09.2008 has admitted the fact about the regular presence of the petitioner in the school and marking his attendance regularly and on the basis of the said fact had directed the Headmaster of the School for payment of the salary and a clarification was also sought for as to why the petitioner’s salary was withheld. Further, the petitioner had also submitted his application and proof of attendance before two years of his retirement and the said fact has been disclosed by the District Superintendent of Education in the letter dated 22.09.2008 and after verifying the records of the petitioner, the District Superintendent of Education had directed for release of the salary. 11. The stand of the respondents with respect to the statement made in paragraphs 9 & 11 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit wherein it has been stated that if the petitioner was not paid the salary, the petitioner had to inform to the District Superintendent of Education from the year 2008 gets falsified on the basis of the letter dated 22.09.2008 issued by the District Superintendent of Education in which there has been categorically mentioned that the petitioner had submitted his application along with proof of attendance to the District Superintendent of Education and on the basis of the said facts the District Superintendent of Education had directed for release of the salary. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 14.07.2012 issued by the Director, Primary Education, is liable to be, and, is hereby, quashed and set-aside. It is held that the Petitioner is entitled for payment of salary for the period from 01.01.2008 to 30.06.2008, 07.09.2008 to 14.10.2008 and 03.11.2008 to 31.12.2008. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to release the same and regularize the said period for the purposes of retiral benefits and other consequential benefits. The Respondents should also take a decision with respect to release of arrears of special leave of 273 days. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to release the same and regularize the said period for the purposes of retiral benefits and other consequential benefits. The Respondents should also take a decision with respect to release of arrears of special leave of 273 days. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt /production of the copy of the order. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.