JOGENDRA NATH ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service from 26.12.1962 to 31.5.1996, the date on which he superannuated and to pay the retirement dues to the petitioner after computing pensionary benefits, accordingly.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that being appointed as Upper Division Clerk (Accounts), he joined on 26.12.1962 as Accounts Officer (Mechanical), Koshi Project, Birpur. Thereafter by Wireless message dated 24.9.1965 he was transferred for being posted In the Office of Accounts Officer, Tenughat Project, Tenughat and for the purpose of joining the said post, he was being relieved on 30.9.1965 with a direction to join by 11.10.1965. The further case of the petitioner is that due to illness and other unavoidable circumstances, he could not join his place of posting and he was compelled to continue on leave till January, 1979 and then in February, 1979 he made a request in writing for sanction of extraordinary leave for the period during which he remained absent. Thereafter by issue of Annexure -2, the office order dated 6.2.1979, the absence of the petitioner from 11.10.1965, till the date of his Joining was treated to be leave without pay and by the said order, the petitioner was appointed temporarily against the vacant post of Upper Division Clerk (Accounts) and it was directed that he would be given the pay -scale of Upper Division Clerk (Accounts) i.e. Rs. 260 -6 -296 -8 -408/ - with other allowances. Further he was directed to join the said post in the Accounts Office of North Koyal Project, Daltonganj.

(3.) ACCORDING to, the petitioner by order dated 6.2.1979, he was granted leave from 11.10.1965 to 14.2.1979 for all purposes and, therefore, he got continuity of service from 26.12.1962. It is further asserted that the petitioner was never terminated from service prior to 6.2.1979 and since his leave was sanctioned from 11.10.1965 to 14.2.1979 and, therefore, the respondents had no option but to treat the continuity of the service of the petitioner from 26.12.1965 till the date of his retirement.