IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3739 of 2007 1. Kamal Kishore Singh 2. Bhushan Kumar 3. Sudhir Kumar, all sons of Late Yamuna Singh, resident of Village- Dema Fatehpur, P.S. Khizar Sarai, Distt. Gaya … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General of Police, Bihar at Patna 2. The Inspector General of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram 3. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, Distt. Rohtas, Dehri … … … Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C. to AAG-5 03 22.09.2011 I.A. No. 5040 of 2011 During the pendency of the writ petition, sole petitioner, Yamuna Singh left for heavenly abode leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the interlocutory application. 2. Let the name of sole petitioner be expunged from the records and his heirs be substituted as petitioner nos. 1,2 and 3. 3. I.A. No. 5040 of 2001 is, accordingly, disposed of. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2 5. At the relevant time, original petitioner served as a constable with the Rohtas District Police. He has filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, to quash the order dated 10.10.2005, Annexure-5 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas whereunder his request for payment of salary for the period between 24.9.1996 – 30.6.1998, the date of his retirement has been rejected on the ground that original petitioner applied for ten days leave on 22.9.1996, which was extended by another ten days, meanwhile, original petitioner was convicted in a criminal case and remanded to jail custody to serve the sentence. While original petitioner was serving the sentence, he attained the age of superannuation and was informed by the authorities that he will superannuate with effect from 30.6.1998. Later, order dated 7.10.1998 was passed dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 24.9.1996. Aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11564 of 2002, which was allowed under orders dated 25.8.2005, Annexure-4 and the dismissal order dated 7.10.1998 was set aside directing the authorities 3 to consider the request of the original petitioner for payment of arrears of salary for the period between 24.9.1996 - 30.6.1998. Aforesaid prayer of the petitioner for payment of salary has been rejected under the impugned order. 6. Counsel for the petitioner states that as the dismissal order dated 7.10.1998 has been set aside, original petitioner is entitled for salary for the period between 24.9.1996 – 30.6.1998. 7. I regret not to accept such submission. Original petitioner availed leave from 22.9.1996 and since thereafter till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.6.1998, he never served as constable, as he remained convicted in the criminal case under judgment dated 23.9.1996. 8. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to grant the relief prayed for in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)