IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1404 of 2010 Aruni Kant Issar, son of Uma Kant Issar, R/o Village- Konaila, P.O.- Kamarao, P.S.- Dalsingh Sarai, District- Samastipur, At Present Residing at Naya Bazar, Saharsa, District- Saharsa. ……Petitioner- Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director of Health Service, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. …Respondents- Respondents. ----------- 02- 24.8.2011 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund for the appellant, and Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.3. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.9590 of 1997, and is aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the claim of the writ petitioner for arrears of salary has been rejected. However, the authorities have been directed to process the papers for post-retirement benefits for the period he had actually served the State Government. 2 2. According to the appellant, he was appointed in the Bihar Health Service as a Medical Officer on 18.2.1965. He joined the service, and was posted at different places. On the own showing of the appellant, he was unauthorisedly absent from 29.4.1978 to 15.3.1983, without obtaining leave. He claims to have reported for duty in the Health Department of the Government of Bihar in Patna Secretariat on 16.3.1983, and the State Government did not give him any posting. He was, therefore, constrained to file C.W.J.C. No.6615 of 1996 for direction to the State Government to make payment of salary from 29.4.1978 and onwards. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single judge of this Court by his order dated 21.11.1996, whereby the writ petitioner was directed to submit representation before the appropriate authority for consideration of his claims for payment of arrears of salary. The appellant submitted his representation. He, however, superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government in January 1997, before his representation could be disposed of. The same was, however, disposed of by order dated 10.9.1997, whereby his claim for payment of arrears of salary has been rejected 3 leading to the present writ petition. The same has been dismissed, whereby the claim for payment of arrears of salary since 29.4.1978 onwards has been rejected. The learned Single Judge has, however, directed the authorities to consider his case for payment of post-retirement benefits on the basis of the services rendered from 18.2.1965 to 28.4.1978. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Single Judge has, on issue of fact, found that the writ petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 29.4.1978 to 15.3.1983, without obtaining any permission whatsoever to avail of the leave. He has further disbelieved the writ petitioner’s case that he had reported for duty on 16.3.1983. It has further been observed in the order that he preferred C.W.J.C. No.6615 of 1996 when he was approaching the date of superannuation from service in January 1997. In other words, the learned Single Judge has in substance found that the writ petitioner had been continuously absent without obtaining prior sanction to avail of the leave from 29.4.1978 till his superannuation in January 1997. We entirely agree with the order of the 4 authorities of 10.9.1997, rejecting the appellant’s representation for arrears of salary. The writ petition has been rightly dismissed with respect to this issue. 4. We now pass on to the question of the appellant’s entitlement for the benefits of the services rendered by him from 18.2.1965 to 28.4.1978. The learned Single Judge has directed that the authorities may consider the writ petitioner’s case for payment of superannuation benefits on the basis of his having served the State Government for that period. Rule 103 of the Bihar Pension Rules 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), inter alia, provides that an interruption in the service of a Government servant entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the case of unauthorised leave of absence etc. Rule 139 of the Rules provides that pension is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. These two aspects of the matter were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. It will, therefore, be open to the authorities to consider the appellant’s case for post-retirement benefits on the basis of his service rendered from 18.2.1965 to 18.4.1978 after taking into account the relevant aspects of the matter 5 including rules 103 and 139 of the Rules. The appellant should be mindful of the position that an employer engages an employee for effective discharge of duties and functions, rather than for the mere benefit of the employee. It is a frivolous appeal. 5. This appeal is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) S.K.Pathak/