IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.15418 of 2006 ============================================= Ramjee Singh, S/o late Jawahir Singh, resident of Vill. Rajpur, P.O. Hathwa Rajpur, P.S. Rajpur, District Buxar. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Director (Secondary Education), Education Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director (Secondary Education) Education Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director (Education), Patna Division, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Patna, Collectorate, Patna. 5. Sub Divisional Education Officer, Barh, Dist. Patna. 6. The Principal, Anugrah Narain Singh School, Barh, District Patna. 7. The Principal, Anugrah Narain Singh School, Barh District- Patna. .... .... Respondents ============================================= 3 13-07-2011 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents for payment of salary for the period 1.5.1995 to 31.12.1995, 1.1.1996 to 24.7.1996 and 25.7.1996 to 13.12.1996 and 14.12.1996 to 22.12.2000 would squarely depend on the fact as to whether the petitioner had performed his official duty in the aforesaid period. It is the findings of the authority and the controlling officer of the petitioner that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent in the aforesaid period, which in fact had also led to an 2 order of suspension. The petitioner, however, continued to remain absent even during the period of suspension on the ground that he was seriously ill as is apparent from reading of his representation contained in Annexure-7 Series. In that view of the matter, the order of the authority dated 5.10.2002, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of his salary for the aforementioned period on account of his being absent from duty, does not suffer from any error. The authorities, in fact, have already condoned the break in service by allowing him the extraordinary leave. In fact, the said order dated 5.10.2002 passed after two years of his retirement has not been assailed in this writ application and, therefore, the grievance relating to payment of salary of the period 1995 onwards in this writ application filed on 14.12.2006 i.e. after six years of retirement of the petitioner, seems to be not only belated but also wholly misconceived. That being so, this application has got no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)