WP(C) 2416/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. Sikdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Verma, lear ned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department. Considering the relief prayed for, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage. The grievance of the petitioner as highlighted in the instant petition i s that though for different periods from 26/2/2002 to 20/9/2002, he had sought f or earned leave on the ground of his illness requiring medical treatment, the sa me has not yet been acted upon and further he has not been allowed to rejoin his duties. A pleader’s notice requesting the intervention of the concerned departm ental authorities also has failed to evoke any response. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions submits that though the pe titioner is absent from duty for the period involved, as on date there is no app lication by him praying for leave of any kind. According to her, if an appropria te application and/or representation is submitted by the petitioner, the concern ed authorities would take a decision thereon. Confronted with the above, Mr. Sikdar submits that the petitioner would act accordingly. In the above view of the matter, this petition is closed leaving the pet itioner at liberty to submit an application/representation for regularisation of his period of absence and if such a step is taken by him, the concerned departm ental authority would decide thereon in accordance with law. No costs.