IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13191 of 2010 JAGDISH NARAIN CHAUDHARY SON OF SRI SHIV NANDAN CHAUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PITHA GHAT RAMPUR, P.O. RAMPUR, P.S. GARBHA, DISTRICT-SARAN AT PRESENT MOHALLA- NAKHAS, P.O. & P.S. HAJIPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIOIN, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR. ----------- 05. 28.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation ( hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ) who prays for further time to file counter affidavit on the ground that on account of strike by the Non-Gazetted employees of the Corporation , he is unable to seek instruction in the matter as the strikers are not permitting the Officers to enter the Corporation Head Office. Appreciating such submission this court under orders dated 07.09.2010 adjourned the matter until 28.9.2010 so as to enable the learned counsel for the Corporation to seek instruction in the matter and to file counter affidavit but on account of prevailing 2 strike he has not been able to do so, in the circumstances the court is proceeding to dispose of the matter without the factual assistance rendered by the counsel for the corporation disputing the averments made in the writ petition. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.09, Annexure-4 passed by the Chief of Administration of the Corporation, whereunder the chief of Administration has communicated the rejection of the request of the petitioner to review the order of the Administrator bearing Memo No.424 dated 26.09.2002, Annexure-2 directing nonpayment of the leave encashment amount as also full salary for the suspension period to the petitioner after his superannuation with effect from 31.7.2002. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that order dated 26.09.2002, Annexure-2 of the Administrator was never served on the petitioner. Later he learnt about the same and sought its review under petition dated 12.2.2008, Annexure-3 on the ground that order dated 26.09.2002, Annexure-2 is contrary to the directions of the High Court contained in order dated 28.4.1998 passed in CWJC No. 1291 of 1997, Annexure-1. The order rejecting the review petition 3 has been communicated by the Chief of Administration under the impugned order dated 09.12.2009, Annexure-4 but perusal of Annexure-4 does not indicate that before rejecting the review petition the Administrator examined the submission of the petitioner that petitioner was never served with the copy of the order dated 26.09.2002 as also the submission of the petitioner that order dated 26.09.2002 is in teeth of the directions of the High Court contained in order dated 28.4.1998, Annexure-1. 4. In the circumstances, I have no option but to quash the order dated 09.12.09, Annexure-4 which is, accordingly quashed with direction to the Administrator to reconsider the matter in the light of the submissions noted above as early as possible in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. It goes without saying that if the review petition is allowed the dues in terms of the order disposing of the review petition should be paid to the petitioner as early as possible in any case within a reasonable time not exceeding another three months. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, 4 disposed of. M.I. HAQUE. ( V. N. Sinha, J.)