IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8326 of 2010 DR. BINOD PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE BHUBAN PRASAD SINGH MOHALLA- HANUMAN NAGAR, BESIDE BHAVA HIGH SCHOOL, NEAR PANI TANKI, P.S.- PATRAKAR NAGAR, PATNA. ……………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. JOINT SECRETARY ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERIES DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. REGIONAL DIRECTOR CENTRAL RANGE, PATNA ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERIES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ……………. RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 16/03/2011 By the impugned order (Annexure-13), representation of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period February, 2009 to November, 2009 has been rejected. From the various orders of this Court available on record, it appears that against his transfer order dated 5.2.2009 petitioner had moved this Court through C.W.J.C.No.2573 of 2009. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 26.2.2009, as contained in Annexure-3, wherein the Principal Secretary was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner pending with him within four weeks and it was directed that till then status quo as on that date should be maintained. Thus, by this 2 order status quo as on 26.2.2009 was to be maintained by the respondents. The representation of the petitioner was subsequently rejected by order of the Principal Secretary dated 5.3.2009. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in this Court through C.W.J.C.No.4865 of 2009. In the said writ application, by order dated 17.4.2009 respondents were allowed three weeks time to file counter affidavit and in the meanwhile operation of the order dated 5.3.2009 was stayed. Thus, by this interim order, operation of the order of the Principal Secretary by which petitioner’s representation had been rejected was stayed. The writ application was thereafter taken up by another Bench on various dates and on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier order dated 17.4.2009, the date of impugned order, operation of which was stayed, was wrongly mentioned as 5.3.2009 whereas the same should have been 5.2.2009, petitioner was allowed to seek modification of the said order. Petitioner therefore moved this Court for modification of the order dated 17.4.2009 3 and the said order was modified on 2.12.2009, vide Annexure-11, wherein learned Judge noticed that the date of the order was wrongly mentioned as 5.3.2009 instead of 5.2.2009 in the said case in the order dated 17.4.2009. By that time, petitioner had superannuated. Therefore, this Court also vacated the order of interim stay. From the order passed in the said writ application on 13.7.2009 (Annexure-7), it appears that the relieving officer had joined the post on 19.2.2009 and the petitioner stood relieved from that date. Therefore, status quo order passed by this Court on 26.2.2009, vide Annexure-3, did not benefit the petitioner as it was specifically mentioned in the order that status quo as of that date had to be maintained. Grievance of the petitioner is that after the interim order of this Court dated 17.4.2009, as contained in Annexure-6, he submitted his joining against his original post which was wrongly not accepted by the respondents as it was clarified in the order dated 2.12.2009 that the operation of the order dated 5.2.2009 was stayed by this Court 4 but by mistake the date 5.3.2009 was mentioned in the order dated 17.4.2009. Hence, petitioner was wrongly not allowed to join till his superannuation. From the order dated 16.7.2009 passed in the said writ application, as contained in Annexure-9, it appears that the Principal Secretary was present in Court on being called by the Court. His explanation was accepted by the Court that there was some confusion in the order dated 17.4.2009 in respect of stay of operation of order and therefore, joining of the petitioner was not accepted. This Court also noticed that this might be a bonafide mistake of the office in the order dated 17.4.2009 for which petitioner was allowed to move for modification. Order of transfer of the petitioner was dated 5.2.2009 and the order of rejection of his representation was dated 5.3.2009. In between this period private respondent had already joined on 19.2.2009, whereas the petitioner had got an order of status quo only on 26.2.2009. However, since the respondent had already joined prior to that date and petitioner was relieved, which 5 is not disputed, this Court is of the view that the various orders of this Court do not benefit the petitioner in any way to make him entitled for the salary of the period. However, in the impugned order petitioner has been given liberty to apply for regularization of the period against his admissible leave. Petitioner may avail that liberty. So far prayer of the petitioner for a direction for payment of his salary is concerned, this Court does not find any merit in such a prayer and the same is accordingly rejected. The writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)