IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3881 of 2003 Smt. Krishna Singh, Wife of Late Kameshwar Singh, Resident of New Jaji Tola (Khad Godam), Garkha Road, P.S. Chapra Mufasil, Dist. Chapra. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, Chapra (Saran). 4. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Chapra. 5. The Deputy Collector, Record Keeping Department, Chapra. ------- Respondents ----------- 4 24.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer in this writ application though looking innocuous inform of seeking a direction from this Court for grant of extraordinary leave under Rule 180 of the Bihar Service Code for the period 13.5.1985 to 14.10.1988 in effect is a prayer for getting benefit of the past service which the petitioner had rendered prior to submitting his resignation on 13.5.1985. The petitioner, in fact, was earlier appointed on the post of Clerk in Saran Collectorate on 3.4.1979 and on her own volition had tendered her resignation on 13.5.1985 which was accepted. Subsequently, the petitioner sought indulgence of the appointing authority, namely, the Collector of Saran District who after more than three years 2 of acceptance of resignation of the petitioner had reappointed her in service with a specific condition incorporated in the order dated 15.10.1988 that she will neither be entitled for payment of salary for the period she was out of service nor such period of absence of her service i.e. 13.5.1985 to 15.10.1988 shall be computable towards the length of service for calculation of her pension. The petitioner had also accepted the aforesaid terms and condition of her reappointment and had remained working on the said post without any demur or protest to the aforementioned terms and conditions as incorporated in the order of her reappointment dated 15.10.1988. Subsequently, after 14 years, the petitioner came out with a prayer for grant of extra ordinary leave for the aforesaid period of 13.5.1985 to 15.10.1988 by taking a plea that if the break in service period of three years five months and two days was not condoned she would not be able to get benefit of pension from the date of first appointment in the year 1979. For this purpose, the petitioner had filed a representation for the first time only on 22.4.2002 which got 3 rejected by an order dated 21.11.2002 as contained in Anenxure-4 to this writ application by reminding the petitioner that she had been reappointed with a specific condition by the order dated 15.10.1988 that her previous services rendered would not be computable towards her pension. The petitioner in such circumstances cannot claim either grant of extraordinary leave as a matter of right specially, when the relationship of master and servant had been severed in the May 1985 after acceptance of her resignation. Infact her being taken back in service itself was by way of grace of the appointing authority in form of reappointment which cannot be allowed to be reopened in the light of conditions imposed in her order of reappointment dated 15.10.1988. Since, such order of reappointment itself clearly mentions that the petitioner will not be entitled for counting the length of service for the period she had been out of service nor its being taken into account and tagged with earlier service for the purpose of calculation of pension, the petitioner cannot now claim the benefit of such past service both in terms of 4 Rule 180 of Bihar Service Code as also in terms of Rule 101 of Bihar Pension Rules forfeiting the past service on account of resignation from the Government service or even in terms of the government decisions issued from time ton time under Rule 103 of the Bihar Pension Rule permitting a maximum condonation of break in service for a period of two years. That being so, the grievance raised by the petitioner after 15 years before this Court questioning virtually now the terms of her re-appointment itself is not only wholly belated one but even her explanation that since the impugned order came to be passed only in the year 2002 and had given her cause of action for the relief prayed in this writ application is to be noted only for its being rejected. The impugned order infact only reiterates the same ground which was already incorporated and intimated to her in the order of re-appointment dated 15.10.1988. Thus it is more than clear that the petitioner in effect wants to assailing the terms and conditions of her re-appointment contained in the order of re-appointment dated 15.10.1988 after a lapse 5 of 15 years and therefore, this writ application is fit to be dismissed on an additional ground of unexplained delay. As a matter of fact the petitioner having accepted the terms of her re-appointment and worked for all this period under the order of re- appointment without any demur or protest cannot be permitted to turn around as she would be bound by the principle of estoppel. If earning pension by an employee is a right and not a bounty condonation of break in service for computation of past period service rendered till the date of resignation is equally not a prerogative of an employee on re-appointment. This court therefore must held that the impugned order rejecting such prayer of the petitioner for grant of extra ordinary leave for condonation of break in service does not suffer from any error and consequently there being no merit in this writ application the same must be and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)