IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5091 of 2011 1. Mahesh Pd. Das S/O Late Amitash Chandra Das R/O Mohalla - Teja Tola, P.O. & P.S. - Katihar, District - Katihar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department of Katihar 4. The Superintendent 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, Katihar ---------------------------------- 3 15.12.2011 This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 22.02.2011 passed in CWJC No.2621 of 2009, by which this Court had disposed of the writ application and directed that the salary of the petitioner of the intervening period, till his date of superannuation, be paid in view of status quo order passed by this Court earlier. A submission was made by learned counsel for the petitioner that after status quo order was passed in the case on 26.02.2009 petitioner had actually worked in the office till March, 2009 and had marked his attendance. However, when the status quo order was received by the respondents, the 2 respondents penned through his attendance and took a stand that he stood relieve with effect from 20.02.2009 itself, i.e., six days prior to the status quo order. A stand was taken by learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ application that, in fact, the petitioner had been paid his salary of February and March, 2009. In view of such submission, this Court held that, as per status quo order, he continued on the post and could not be held unauthorizedly absent. Hence, he was entitled for the salary till he superannuated with effect from 31.01.2011. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this modification application submits that by mistake the wrong submission was made in the writ application that the petitioner has been paid his salary for the months of February and March, 2009. In fact, he had been paid salary only till January, 2009 and he was not paid his salary of February and March, 2009, as after receipt of the orders of status quo passed by this Court on 26.02.2009, the respondents had withheld his salary of February and March, 3 2009 and had penned through his attendance showing him relieved with effect from 20.02.2009. This submission changes the stand of the parties of the writ application. However, this is not denied that the petitioner stands superannuated with effect from 31.01.2011. Hence, his transfer order dated 28.11.2009 has become infructuous. This is a matter of dispute whether the petitioner had marked his attendance on the register till March, 2009 and whether it was penned through, or not. But the fact remains that on 26.02.2009, this Court had directed status quo to be maintained by the parties. It is the stand of the petitioner that as on that date petitioner had not been served with any relieving order and if any order of relieving was passed that was behind his back and unilaterally and as such in terms of the status quo order petitioner continued in that status till his superannuation. While concluding the order, this Court had observed that in case the records do not establish that petitioner had continued on the post and had worked in the office after 4 20.02.2009, his period of absence shall be adjusted against his admissible leave. In the circumstances, this Court clarifies that in case the signatures of the petitioner on the attendance register of March, 2009 is available, even if it was penned through later on, petitioner will be entitled to salary from February, 2009 onwards till his superannuation as the status quo shall be treated as operating in his favour. In case, there is no signature of the petitioner on the attendance register after 20.02.2009, his period of absence shall be adjusted against his admissible leave and his services shall be regularized for the purposes of pensionary benefits. The MJC application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)