IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2040 of 2008 MITHILA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 25.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is a primary teacher under physically handicapped category at Saghor Sultanpur Dakshini Panchayat, Block Bhagwanpur Hat in the district of Siwan. It is her case that while discharging duties on 7.5.2007 she suffered a paralytic attack and proceeded on medical leave. It is submitted that she duly intimated the authorities same day to grant her leave from 8.5.2007 to 31.5.2007. Since her ailment persisted and she was unable to resume duty she gave another application on 31.5.2007 received on 4.6.2007 requesting extension of her leave from 1.6.2007 to 30.6.2007. It is her further case that she was under the treatment at Kailash Hospital and Research Centre, Noida. Upon recovery she went to resume duties on 14.12.2007 when she was informed that another person has been appointed in her place. Annexure-9 reveals that on her representation, the Block Development Officer directed the Block Education Extension Officer to submit a report on facts on 14.12.2007. In this representation, she specifically stated that she had gone to Noida for treatment and she enclosed her medical certificates along with the application. The writ petition has been filed on 24.1.2008. 2 Despite adjournment on 20.2.2009 for the purpose, no counter affidavit has been filed. The writ petition raises purely an administrative issue, whether the employee had intimated for proceeding on leave on medical grounds, whether the leave was sanctioned, whether there has been an enquiry on the genuineness of the application etc. The writ application does not raise any legal issue. To this Court, the only legal issue arising on the facts is that the service of a Government employee cannot be interfered with except in accordance with law even on issue of absence. It is unfortunate that the Respondents have chosen to push a purely administrative issue to this Court in the form of a writ application and then chosen to sit silent over it throwing the entire administrative burden on the High court. The High Court refuses to take over the administrators burden. The writ application is allowed. The Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to resume duty immediately in accordance with law. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)