WP(C) 631/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. Phuka n, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Also heard Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel Finace Department appearing for the respond ent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that though p ursuant to the release from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. on 01.1 2.2008, where the petitioner was in quasi-lien, the petitioner reported to the o ffice of the Director, Dairy Development, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Depart ment of Govt. of Assam on 03.08.2009, he has not been allowed to resume his duti es in the parent department as Asstt. Distribution Officer under the Directorate of Dairy Development, Govt. of Assam. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a di rection to the respondent authorities to allow him to resume his duties. The petitioner was granted quasi-lien vide order dated 01.12.2005 passed by the Govt. of Assam in Veterinary Department, for a period of 2(two) years fr om the date of release from the department so as to enable him to join in his ne w assignment as Unit Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. The p etitioner, who at that point of time was Asstt. Distribution Officer, Town Milk Supply Scheme, Khanapara, was accordingly released from the said department on 0 1.12.2005. The period of said quasi-lien was up to 31.10.2007. The petitioner, h owever, on the date of expiry of the quasi-lien i.e. 31.10.2007 filed an applica tion for extension of the quasi-lien for another 5(five) years, which was reject ed by the Government and was communicated to the petitioner by the Director of D airy Development, Govt. of Assam, vide communication dated 04.02.2008. The Direc tor again vide communication dated 06.06.2008 informed the petitioner to join hi s parent place of posting immediately, intimating him that failing which his ser vices would be terminated. The Director vide communication dated 20.06.2008 agai n informed the petitioner either to join his parent place of posting or to resig n from the parent post. By the said communication the petitioner was also inform ed that if he does not respond to the said communication within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the same, it will be assumed that he is not interest ed to come back in the said post and it will be treated as his resignation from the parent post. The petitioner, however, before expiry of the said period filed an application on 23.06.2008 to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department again requesting extension of qu asi-lien. The petitioner was thereafter released by ICICI Prudential Life Insura nce Company Ltd. vide order dated 01.12.2008 and though according to the petitio ner, he immediately reported to the Directorate of Dairy Development for allowin g him to join, no order has been passed thereby keeping the petitioner in a hang ing position. It appears that the petitioner filed a number of representations includi ng the representation dated 03.08.2009 addressed to the Commissioner and Secreta ry to the Govt. of Assam, A.H. & Veterinary Department, which was forwarded by t he Director of Dairy Development on 06.08.2009. It also appears that the Deputy Secretary thereafter vide communication dated 25.08.2009 requested the Director of Dairy Development to apprise the Government how the period beyond 31.10.2007 is to be regularized. The Director accordingly vide communications dated 29.09.2 009 and 10.02.2010 informed the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam , A.H. & Veterinary Department, relating to the manner in which the said period is to be regularized. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite issuance o f such communication by the Director, no order has been passed by the Commission er and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, A.H. & Veterinary Department so as to en able the petitioner to resume his duties in the parent department. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed such factual assertion of the petit ioner are not denied. The Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, A.H. and Veteri nary Department in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 has also not stated relating to passing of any order pursuant to the afore said communications dated 29.09.2009 and 10.02.2010 issued by the Director. The respondent No.2, the Director of Dairy Development while admitting the factual a ssertion of the petitioner has stated that since the Director is not the compete nt authority to allow the petitioner to resume his duties in the parent departme nt unless necessary approval is given by the Government, the Director could not allow the petitioner to resume his duties. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 it has been stated that despite the various com munications issued by the department and received by the petitioner, he did not join his parent department after expiry of the period of quasi-lien and rejectio n of the prayer for extension of the period by another 5(five) years. It has als o been stated that quasi-lien beyond the period of 2(two) years cannot be extend ed. The fact remains that though the Director pursuant to the communication dated 25.08.2009 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, A.H. & Ve terinary Department intimated the Commissioner and Secretary of the said departm ent relating to the manner in which the period of absence from service by the pe titioner beyond 31.10.2007 can be regularized, no final decision has been taken by the Commissioner and Secretary, A.H. & Veterinary Department of Govt. of Assa m till date. That being the position, the present petition is disposed of directing t he Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, A.H. & Veterinary Department to take a final decision in the matter within 15 days from the date of receipt o f the certified copy of the order passed today to be produced by the petitioner before the said authority. The order that may be passed shall immediately be com municated to the petitioner. It is needless to say that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order t hat may be passed, it is open to him to avail such legal remedy as is available to him. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.