STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SERAJUDDIN ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is made against the order dated 9.8.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 643 of 2000, whereby the writ application was allowed.

(2.) FACTS of the case briefly stated are that the respondent no. 1/petitioner, was appointed as Assistant Professor in Electrical Engineering Department, Government of Bihar on regular basis on the recommendation made by Bihar Public Service Commission through the notification dated 19.8.1974. He was confirmed in his post with effect from 29.8.1975. Later, in 1981 he was appointed as Senior Electrical Engineer in Nigeria and on gaining such appointment, he applied to the Government for lien and for sanctioning permission for leave. In response, Government vide its letter dated 6.11.1981 granted him permission and sanctioned leave, where -after he joined his service in Nigeria and continued there till 1986. Respondent no. 1/petitioner has claimed that while he was employed at Nigeria, he had sent applications at regular intervals to the State Government for extension of his leave, but the same remained pending and after expiry of the period of his service at Nigeria, he returned to India and submitted his joining in the Secretariat at Patna on 28.10.1986: His joining was accepted by the concerned Department of the State Government and he continued to remain in the Secretariat. Later, by notification dated 17.1.1987 he was transferred and posted in the Government Polytechnic College, Ranchi on the post of Assistant Professor where he joined and remained till November 1994. It was in the year 1994 that he submitted his letter of resignation, which was accepted by the Government on 14.11.1994 with immediate effect. Though, he had joined his post in the Government Polytechnic College, Ranchi in 1987, he was not paid his salary. After his retirement, the expected payment of gratuity, arrears of salary and leave encashment, etc. was not made despite several representations made by him. Consequently, he filed writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 2807 of 1998(R). While disposing of the writ application on 5.11.1999, the High Court directed the respondent (appellant herein) to take a decision on the pending application of the petitioner for grant of extraordinary leave for the period from 13.11.1981 to 27.10.1986. Almost one and half month after i.e. on 29.12.1999, by the impugned letter dated 29.12.1999 respondent no. 1/petitioner was informed that his leave application for the period from 13.11.1981 to 27.10.1986 was rejected.

(3.) THE grounds raised by the appellant are not at all persuasive and in the light of the facts of the case, the same are apparently misconceived.