PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred present petition praying to quash memo No. 274 dated 28.3.2005 and letter vide Memo No. 1043 dated 11.11.2005 by which they have been granted duty period leave from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005 and have been sanctioned duty period leave salary respectively.

(2.) Petitioners No. 1 and 2 both were appointed on the post of 'Traversor' on compassionate ground and posted at Bihar Survey Office Guljarbagh, Patna. Petitioner-No. 1 was appointed by letter dated 29.11.1988 and the petitioner No. 2 by letter dated 25.2.1997. Petitioners' case is that after joining the service they were working in the Bihar Survey Office Guljarbagh. Suddenly a letter dated 28.3.2005 contained in Memo No. 274 was issued by the Deputy Director, Bihar Survey Office Guljarbagh, Patna whereby petitioners alongwith others were sent on leave form 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005. This letter has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it is arbitrary and unreasonable because prior to issuance of this letter no notice to this effect was given to them as for the first time after their joining they were sent on leave. Another grievance of the petitioners is that earlier when other employees were sent on leave they were paid 50% of their basis salary alongwith other allowances but in the case of the petitioners they have been allowed only 20% of their basic salary without any allowance. It has also been submitted that only such 'Traversors' who are in the Field Establishment can be sent on leave under Rule 87 of Tranversors Rule and Bihar Service Code 192. Petitioners being appointed in the Bihar Survey Office Guljarbagh and not being the Field Staff could not have been sent on leave. It has also been submitted that since the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground Rule 87 of Traversor Rule read with Bihar Service Code 192 is not applicable in their case. For all these reasons the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of The Deputy Director. Bihar Survey Office Guljarbagh, respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 has stated that granting duty period leave to the petitioners and sanctioning of duty period leave salary to them is well within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director, Rule 192A(iii) of Bihar Service Code specially mentions that Traversors who are appointed for field work can be sent on sanctioned leave in the off season or when there is no work. The duty period leave is not a punishment or stricture as the petitioners are trying to project. Rule 192 of the Bihar Service Code provides the conditions in which the duty period leave can be granted and the other conditions attached to this ground of duty period leave. Rule 87 of Traverse Rule Bihar and Orissa Survey 1986 lays down the rational for grant of duty period leave salary the maximum of which has been limited to a maximum of half of pay of the duty period. The impugned order is neither illegal nor arbitrary as such interference of this Court is not needed. The orders have been passed in accordance with the provisions of law and statutory rules. As such the allegation of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Principle of Natural Justice is unfounded.