IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.319 of 2011 9 18.4.2011 Md. Abdullah Ansari, S/o Late Siyad Ansari, Resident of Village Parsauni Nath, P.S. Baruraj, P.O. Rampur, District Muzaffarpur …… (Petitioner) …. Appellant VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum Secretary, Department of Education, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director of Education, Primary –cum- Special Secretary, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kanti, Muzaffarpur 5. The Head Master of the Primary School, Mahdeiya Masjid, P.S. Sahebganj, District Muzaffarpur …… (Respondents) … Respondents ------- For the Appellant : Mr S. Azeem, Advocate For the State : Mr Arun Kumar, AC to GP 5 ------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. By the order under appeal dated 31.8.2010, the Writ Court noticed that nobody had appeared for the petitioner and some facts relevant for deciding the petitioner’s claim for salary as a teacher were also noticed. Finding that for the period of almost 10 years the petitioner was mentally sick and was under treatment in an Asylum at Ranchi, the Writ Court decided not to interfere in the matter in view of decision of the - 2 - authorities that petitioner should not be paid for the period he had not worked. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, IA No.1377 of 2011 preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. We have heard the parties on merits and we find that although the appellant has crossed the age of superannuation and has become 61 years of age, the writ petition was filed in the year 1998 and one of the grievances of the appellant was that he was not allowed to join his post and that has resulted in denial of further salary to the petitioner for a long period when he was willing to work. It appears that the authorities came to notice long absence of the petitioner from duty for almost 10 years when he sought permission to join after treatment. In that view of the matter, they initiated some sort of proceeding for terminating the service of the appellant on the ground of unauthorized absence. It is not known what happened in the proceeding because no counter affidavit has been filed by the State so far. - 3 - In the facts of the case, the authorities are under a legal obligation to decide the claim of the petitioner for salary at least for the period after he submitted his application for joining the service. If the authorities did not terminate the service of the petitioner in accordance with law, they had to decide on petitioner’s application for joining within a reasonable period of few days. If that was not done then the authorities must thank themselves for allowing the appellant to continue in service and although he was willing to work, his request for joining was not decided one way or the other. In such a situation, if the appellant continued in service till his superannuation, his claim for salary for the period when he offered his joining till his superannuation and thereafter his pensionary benefits must be decided by the authorities in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production/ communication of a copy of this order. In case any other decision had already been taken by the authorities in respect of service of the petitioner or his claim for joining, such decision, if already taken, may be - 4 - communicated to the appellant without any delay, preferably within three months. In case the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the authorities he would be at liberty to seek redressal through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. If any retiral benefits are found payable to the appellant, the same should be made available to him immediately after taking the decision within three months. The appeal is disposed of. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr Ravi Ranjan, J.)