IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.621 of 2005 MOSOMAT.FATIMA BEGUM W/O SK. SHAID ALI R/O ASANANDPUR, PO- TARAPUR, PS-TARAPUR DISTT- BHAGALPUR----------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE D.G.-CUM-I.G. OF POLICE, PATNA 3. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE, SAHABAD RANGE DEHRI ON SONE,ROHTAS 4. THE S.P. ROHTAS 5. THE S.P. BAKARO--------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr.Pranov Kumar, Advocate For the State of Bihar: J.C. to G.A.7. For the State of Jharkhand: Mr. Dhrub Mukherji Advocate. ----------- 3 16.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar as well as learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. Petitioner is a widow of late Sk. Shahid Ali who was a constable under the State of Bihar. Before bifurcation of the State he was posted at Bokaro and was relieved on 1.10.1997 to join the police force at Rohtas but the petitioner reported only on 12.7.1999. He was not allowed to join at Rohtas because code of conduct was enforced and he was directed to go back to Bokaro and report after the elections were over. Petitioner did come back after election to the district police of Rohtas, went on earned leave and soon after expiry of the period of leave, an information was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas that the husband of the petitioner had died due to illness. The writ application has been filed by the wife thereafter to pay salary with effect from 1.10.1997 to 6.12.1999, arrears of increments from 1992 and benefit of LIC and post retiral - 2 - dues which would accrue to the husband of the petitioner. So far as the payment of salary for the period 1.10.97 till 6.12.99 is concerned nothing is payable to the petitioner by virtue of the factual position indicated in the order dated 10.12.99 which is annexure D to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4. Husband of the petitioner was absent for 797 days and that absence has been regularized by the respondent by granting him extraordinary leave. That was done because there was no credit available to the petitioner by way of any earned leave or half pay earned leave to cover the absence of 797 days. If that is the actual state of affair then there is no question of directing the respondent to pay salary for these periods. From a perusal of annexure-6 it is evident that entitlement of the husband of the petitioner for increment from 1992 is not disputed. Only reason given why the increment could not be granted to the husband of the petitioner was the non- availability of his service book and non-incorporation of replacement scale given to the employees of the State from 1.1.96 in the service book. Absence of service book was the only reason why the increment could not be granted to the husband of the petitioner well in time. In that background the Court has difficulty in accepting the stand of the respondent in support of the order contained in annexure-6, which states that the petitioner would not - 3 - be entitled to monetary benefit accruing from grant of increment from the year 1992. Annexure-6 to that extent is quashed. A direction is issued to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas to ensure that the benefit of increment from the year 1992 is made over to the petitioner. So far other dues is concerned, if it has not been settled till date steps shall be taken to ensure that the benefit of such kind including the post retiral benefits and family pension of the petitioner be made with due authorization. The issue will be settled within a reasonable time frame. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)