IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16056 of 2009 1. AQIL HUSSAIN S/O ALAM HUSSAIN URDU TYPIST IN THE SUB- DIVISION OFFICE- CHATRA, DISTT.- CHATRA, JHARKHAND Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF RAJBHASHA, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR (URDU), CABINET SECRETARIAT (RAJBHASHA) DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIVISIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR (RAJBHASHA), SARAN DIVISION AT CHAPRA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, EKMA, SARAN AT CHAPRA 6. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY OF THE DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 7. THE DIRECTOR (URDU), RAJBHASHA, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF RAJBHASHA, HAZARIBAGH DIVISION AT HAZARIBAGH, JHARKHAND 9. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHATRA SUB-DIVISION, CHATRA, JHARKHAND 10. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MDHUPUR, DEOGHAR, JHARKHAND ----------- 2. 4.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State of Bihar as also for the State of Jharkhand. Consequent to the re-organization of the State of Bihar, the services of the petitioner have been transferred to the State of Jharkhand where he has joined on 21.2.2007. The controversy in this writ application relates to his claim for continuity in service between 18.6.1996 to 24.8.1996 in the undivided State of Bihar. He came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 14359 of 2007 with a claim to send his absentee report 2 and non-payment certificate for the aforesaid period to the authorities in the State of Jharkhand to maintain continuity of his service so that arrears of salary for the said period may be paid to him. No counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Bihar. This Court, therefore, found itself handicapped to pass any positive order but did notice that despite his representation, the respondent State of Bihar was not passing any reasoned order thereupon. It is only after the orders of this Court, in what was otherwise a routine administrative function, the respondent State of Bihar has passed the impugned order dated 19.8.2009. On going through the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the issue basically relates to transfer and posting of the petitioner in different divisions during the period in question, non-availability of post at the transferred place etc. in which background the impugned order arrives at a speculative finding of his unauthorized absence. In absence of any recital in the impugned order that the petitioner was subjected to any show cause notice or proceeding for alleged unauthorized absence, this Court finds it difficult in the nature of the controversy to find fault with the petitioner and to reject 3 his claim on that reasoning. The order dated 19.8.2009 being speculative and inconclusive in nature by itself and not containing any recital that the petitioner was proceeded with departmentally even by a show cause notice for the period of alleged unauthorized absence, it is clearly non-sustainable in law. The order dated 19.8.2009 is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)