IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12006 of 2003 Sri Chand Prasad, Son of Late Murari Prasad, P.S.-Chandi, Resident of Village-Kaila, District-Nalanda. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road Patna, through its Chairman. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Departmental of General Administration, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 5. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Baily Road, Patna. -Respondents. ****** Advocates for the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Mohan Verma. Mr. Pravin Kumar. Advocates for the Respondents : Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma. Mr. Jainendra Kumar Pushkar. Mr. K.K. Tiwari. ****** 05 29.07.2009 The petitioner was an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board. He was posted at Muzaffarpur. He was transferred to Ranchi but refused to join claiming that being a trade union leader he was protected under the Industrial Dispute Act from being transferred. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was terminated by order dated 29.10.1992. There were a lot of ups and downs thereafter and several visits to this Court. Ultimately by order dated 14.01.1994 (Annexure-1), the order of termination dated 29.10.1992, he was taken back on the condition that the period from - 2 - termination till the date of joining shall be adjusted against leave on due exhaustion of leave, extraordinary leave (leave without pay) will be sanctioned so that a continuity is made. Petitioner would have to apply for grant of leave. Petitioner’s grievance is against Annexure-4, being order dated 15.10.1999, by which petitioner has been granted leave for 120 days and the balance period has been fitted as extraordinary leave without pay. Petitioner submits that during the period aforesaid he was sick with Hepatitis B and Tuberculosis he was thus entitled to 120 days of medical leave apart from that he was entitled to 180 days of accumulated leave with pay. The balance could be treated as leave extraordinary without pay. Petitioner has been deprived of these periods of paid leave. Hence, this writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it is stated and it is also apparent from the pleadings in the writ petition that the plea of sickness of petitioner was put up for the first time before the Board in 1999, even though petitioner joined service on the conditions as noted above in 1994 itself. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that leave with full pay of 180 days is only after amendment of the standing orders with effect from 1998, earlier that is for the period relevant to the petitioner, it was only 120 days. Respondents thus contend that they have rightly granted him leave and no further indulgence is required. Having heard the parties, examine the matter and with consent of parties the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In my view, so far as claim of medical leave is concerned, it is - 3 - too belated to be admitted. If in fact petitioner was sick in 1991/1992 he should have protested these and claimed medical leave immediately on joining, pursuant to order dated 14.01.1994, wherein it was clearly mentioned that petitioner on revocation of termination would have to apply for leave. Petitioner did not take any such step. As per petitioner’s own pleadings with reference to Annexure-3 series, it is apparent that the claim of medical leave was made for the first time in the year 1999 that is after 5 years, the Board cannot be faulted for having rejected the said claim. Now, the only question remainder is with regard to accumulated earned leave. Petitioner asserts that it is 180 days. The Board asserts that 120 days for the period relevant for the present purpose, it was increased to 180 days only with effect from 1998 when the standing orders were amended. On the other hand, petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court a private publication of compilation of statutory orders and directions including the standing orders, in question, which was allegedly published in the year 1988, as per the said Clause 22 (a) of the standing orders grants 180 days of earned leave. But, the fact also remains that the petitioner has not controverted the specific assertion made by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Be that as it may, in interest of justice, I direct the Financial Controller of the Board to examine this matter and see if for the period relevant that is 29.10.1992 to 14.01.1994 the prevalent standing orders then gave only 120 of earned leave then it is only that would be granted to the petitioner, but if during that period the petitioner’s entitlement was 180 days, it is those 180 days that the petitioner would get such a - 4 - decision has to be taken by the Financial Controller within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. With this limited relief and observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)