IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16602 of 2004 RAMAKANT SINGH SON OF LATE SHEO NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHIRA, P.S. BHADOURA, DISTRICT MUNGER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BUILDING, HARDING ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, REVENUE ADMINISTRATION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BARRAK NO. 5, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, REVENUE ADMINISTRATION, BARRAK NO. 5, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISION, GAYA. 6. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISION, TARAPUR. 7. The CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR. ----------- 07. 29.06.2010 As prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Government of Bihar, as respondent no. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to payment of arrears of salary with effect from 04.06.1990 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.12.2003 and after fixation of salary, the pensionary benefits be finally settled. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 2 submits that the officer order as contained in memo no. 5372 dated 23.09.2005 as also the office order contained in memo no. 6409 dated 14.11.2005 were issued after retirement of the petitioner as contained in Annexure 8 and 9 to the interlocutory application no. 47 of 2008. By the aforesaid order, the period taken to be unauthorized absence of the petitioner as mentioned in those two orders have been taken to be break in service, as a result petitioner was put on serious financial hardship towards his entitlement of the retiral dues. Notwithstanding the merits of the matter, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid orders were passed without even hearing the petitioner which deprived the petitioner to place his case and explaining the circumstances. Learned counsel for the State submits that admittedly petitioner was absent during the aforesaid period i.e. 01.08.1993 to 17.08.1994 and 15.07.1998 to 31.12.2003 as also the period 01.07.1998 to 14.07.1998 as mentioned in Annexure- 8 and 9. As such, the above unauthorized absence taken to be the break in service with further direction that the above period shall not be counted for pensionable service. Considering the submission of the parties, it is directed that the petitioner will be at liberty to file a 3 representation for redressal of his grievance as highlighted in the writ application before the respondent no. 7. In such view of the matter, in case such representation stating details of unpaid claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the above respondent shall consider the claims of the petitioner as raised in the representation in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)