DR.BIPIN BIHARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EARD counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was appointed as Touring Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and gave his joining on 17.7.1958 at Baheri in the district of Darbhanga. In course of service in the year 1987 he developed some serious ailment and proceeded on leave.

(2.) He remained absent from 4.10.1978 to 9.9.1987. The petitioner gave his joining on 10.9.1987. Petitioner remained on waiting for posting till 8.4.94 and finally on 9.5.1994 the petitioner was transferred to Dumka. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 19.4.1996 relating to his unauthorised absence and finally by order dated 25.1.1997 the proceeding was dropped exonerating him from the charge of unauthorised absence. On 31.7.1996 the petitioner retired from service. His provisional pension was fixed but his salary for the period of absence as well as for the period he was waiting for posting was not paid. Earlier for this relief petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 7928 of 2000 which was disposed of directing the respondents to determine the claim of the petitioner on merit. Petitioner has filed his representation and by the impugned order dated 13.6.2003 the period of absence have been regularised but so far the period during which he kept on waiting for posting has been treated as extraordinary leave and also that he has not done work for this period as such he is not entitled for salary. The petitioner has annexed the notification dated 4.11.1995 from which it transpires that on 18.9.1987 the petitioner gave his joining which was duly accepted. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the State in that there is no denial so far the order contained in notification dated 4.11.1995 is concerned. It is also not denied that from 10.4.1987 to 8.4.1994 the petitioner was waiting for his posting and finally he was transferred to Dumka as Touring Veterinary Officer vide Memo No. 392 dated 6.5.1994. In response to which he gave his joining on 10.5.1994. Once all these facts are admitted by the respondents there is no reason for rejecting the petitioner 'sclaim for salary for the period he was remained on waiting for posting. If the petitioner was not posted anywhere in between 10.9.87 to 8.5.1994, respondents are to explain that why any order of posting was not passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be forced to suffer on account of laches on the part of the respondents.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY the part of the order dated 13.6.2003 contained in Memo No. 2581 issued by the Animal Husbandry Department under the signature of Deputy Secretary is quashed and this application is allowed. The respondents are directed to make payment of salary of the petitioner for the period from 10.9.87 to 8.5.1994.