IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6194 of 2011 Srikant Pandey SON OF LATE RAMPATIT PANDEY RESIDENT OF BARMAKALA, P.S. BASANTPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CIRCLE SIWAN. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, GOPALGANJ. ---------------------------------- 2 02/08/2011 The Court fails to understand as to why the petitioner is approaching the High Court again and again for a relief which may be difficult to grant him. From the materials brought on record by the petitioner himself there is something to show that the petitioner on order of transfer having been passed against him did not join the transferred place for a long time. The period in question is 8.4.2000 to 31.12.2000. There was neither any application for leave nor any clear explanation coming on this score from the petitioner. This compelled the authorities to even hold a departmental proceeding after suspending him. Petitioner had approached the High Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 7744 of 2001 where no categorical declaration was made in favour of the petitioner. However, the writ was disposed of with a direction upon - 2 - the respondents to consider his representation if it was filed. A detailed narration with regard to the issue emerges from reading of annexure-3. It is evident that no case for payment of salary for this period is made out due to failure of the petitioner to perform any duty or any clear explanation with regard to his absence. His submission made at the Bar that he was still working at the original place of posting has no basis because that aspect of the matter does not seem to be reflected in the narration contained in annexure-3. After considering all these aspects and the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondents have been left with no option but to treat this period as extraordinary leave which has been rightly done in the present case. Non-regularization of the period in terms of annexure-4, would have lead to break in service, having disastrous consequences for the petitioner on reaching the age of superannuation. The Court is not convinced merely on statement now being made that the petitioner’s absence should be treated to be on duty when nothing of that kind has - 3 - emerged either in the enquiry or otherwise from verification of the record which would be evident from annexure-3. In view of the same, no interference with annexure-4 is required. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)