IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2621 of 2009 Mahesh Prasad Das, S/o Late Amitash Chandra Das, Resident of Mohalla Teja Tola, P.O. + P.S. Katihar, District Katihar. At present working as correspondence clerk (Sub-Divisional Clerk), Road Construction Department, Road Construction Sub- Division, Katihar, District Katihar…………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department of Katihar. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Purnea Division, Purnea. 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Katihar. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Patna………Respondents ----------- 4 22.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ application on 25.02.2009 challenging his transfer order dated 28.11.2009, as contained in Annexure-2. The matter was heard on 26.02.2009 and this Court directed status quo as of today to be maintained in the case till the next date. The Court allowed three weeks time to the respondents to file counter affidavit. The matter has remained pending since then and it is informed that the petitioner has 2 superannuated with effect from 31st January, 2011. Therefore, relief prayed for against the order of transfer becomes infructuous. The only dispute remains as to how the period during which petitioner was transferred should be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that in the contempt application filed by the petitioner, respondents came up with a plea that petitioner stood relieved with effect from 20.02.2009 i.e. six days prior to the order of status quo passed by this Court. He refers to Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit to contend that in fact, on the attendance register petitioner had marked his attendance till March, 2009 which was later on penned through by his controlling officer to take a stand that he was relived from the post prior to the order of status quo passed by this Court. He further submits that in fact, petitioner has drawn his salary from the post till March, 2009. Thus, he submits that on the date the order of status quo 3 was passed, petitioner had not been relieved and was working in the office of Katihar and had marked his attendance and drawn his salary for the months of February and March, 2009. Payment of salary of the petitioner for the months of February and March, 2009 can well be established on the basis of the records. If he had been paid salary of March, 2009 from his post at Katihar, definitely he was working there and in terms of the status quo order, he had to be allowed to continue there till further orders of this Court. This fact is being noticed only for the purpose that in view of the status quo order, if the petitioner had worked and drawn his salary upto March, 2009, he cannot be treated as unauthorizedly absent from the office. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to verify as to whether petitioner had drawn his full salary from the post at Katihar for the months of February and March, 2009 or 4 not. If he had drawn his salary then in terms of the status quo order of this Court he shall be treated to have continued on the post and superannuated from the same. Accordingly, he will be entitled for his arrears of salary till date of his superannuation and calculation of all the retiral benefits on the basis of such superannuation from that post. In case the records do not establish that petitioner had continued on the post and had worked in the office of Katihar after 20.02.2009, his period of absence shall be adjusted against his admissible leave. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)