IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6834 of 2006 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE RAM PAVITRA SINGH RESIDNET OF VILLAGE AKAUNA, P.S. PUNPUN, PATNA AT PRESENT POSTED AS MOHARRIR IN THE OFFICE OF THE QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION NO. I, ANISHABAD, PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION NO. I, ANISABAD, PATNA. ----------- 2 15/11/2010 Decision taken in annexure-1 seems to be an order in consonance with the service rules. Stand of the petitioner is that merely because the State delayed holding of Medical Board between 1998 and 2004, petitioner cannot be held responsible for not shouldering the responsibility of the post and this period should be treated in service. It is an admitted position that the petitioner disappeared from service from 1.12.1994 and remained absent till 15.5.1998 on the ground that he was taken ill. He was suffering from Tuberculosis. - 2 - The fact stands that the petitioner did not take any leave or permission from the authority before absenting himself for this period. Just because petitioner turned up on duty in 1998 saying that he was fit enough to resume his duty, it cannot be said that it was good enough to take him back in service or treat him to have continued in service on his mere asking. Respondent State had to put the petitioner before a Medical Board to ascertain his fitness for such a job. It is only in 2004 that the petitioner was certified to be capable of shouldering the responsibility of the post. The Court fails to understand the ground on which the respondents would be obliged to pay salary to the petitioner from 1998 till the order of his rejoining issued in the year 2004 on the ground of laches on the part of the respondents. In fact the laches is on the part of the petitioner. If there was delay on the part of the respondents, the petitioner ought to have approached the Court for suitable direction. Under the garb of waiting for Medical Board’s opinion, petitioner has enjoyed a broad vacation for six years and now he cannot be allowed to draw salary for that period. The Court is not - 3 - inclined to entertain such prayer in this background. This writ application is dismissed as it is an ill advised, if not misplaced, kind of writ application. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)