IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4822 of 2010 1. KAMALA PRASAD RAI S/O LATE PRASIDH RAI R/O VILL DHARMPUR, P.O.ANDHARI, DISTT-BHOJPUR, AT PRESENT POSTED AS LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, KAKO CIRCLE, DISTT-JAHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE IN-CHARGE LABOUR COMMISSIONER , LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR , AGRICULTURAL LABOUR, JOINT LABOUR BHAWAN BAILY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER , LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JAHANABAD 6. THE LABOUR SUPERINTENDENT AT & P.O.& P.S.JAHANABAD, DISTT- JAHANABAD 7. THE CIRCLE OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KAKO BLOCK, JEHANABAD 8. THE CIRCLE OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RATANI BLOCK , JAHANABAD ----------- 2/ 08/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The relief claimed in the writ application is to sanction leave to the petitioner in between 5.7.2008 to 21.9.2008 during which it is submitted that the petitioner was on leave after permission of the competent authority due to the illness of his wife. Further relief sought is to pay arrears of salary for the month of July, till 21st of September, 2008 after sanctioning leave. It is submitted that while the petitioner was posted at Jehanabad his wife fell seriously ill. He applied for grant of casual leave in between 5.7.2008 to 8.7.2008 - 2 - with a request to avail 6.7.2008 which was a Sunday as part of the same and for permission to leave Head- quarters. It is his further case that he was granted permission on 4.7.2008 to leave Head-quarters and his casual leave was sanctioned. On reaching home he found that his wife’s illness required further treatment and he sent an application through registered post for extension of his leave for the period 9.7.2008 to 26.7.2008 by adjustment of the same against his earned leave account due to the illness of his wife and the required medical treatment. This application is stated to have been received in the office. When there was no improvement in the health of his wife he sent another application for extension of leave on 23.7.2008 by registered post for the period 27.7.2008 to 17.8.2008 again with a request to adjust it against his earned leave account. This was again extended by the petitioner for certain other periods by registered letters which are stated to have been received. After the health of his wife improved he resumed his duties on 22.9.2008. A show cause notice was then issued on 13.8.2008 to explain his absence failing which departmental proceedings would be initiated against him. The petitioner replied to the same. On the own showing of the petitioner, a departmental proceeding has been started against the - 3 - petitioner and memo. of charge issued on 16.7.2008. The petitioner claims unavoidable absence on account of the illness of his wife requiring urgent medical treatment. That is his defence to be considered in the departmental proceeding itself. If his explanation is found acceptable and leave sanctioned, naturally, he shall be entitled to his salary for the periods in question. Needless to state that if his explanation is not found acceptable, the question of payment of salary for the period does not arise. Let the departmental proceedings be concluded within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order provided the petitioner himself cooperates. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)