IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8163 of 2005 Dr.Laliteshwar Pd.Singh, son of Late Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, Dist. Patna. …..Petitioenr. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. …Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the State : Sanjay Kumar, G.P. 14. ------------- 03. 06.03.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Initially this application was filed by the petitioner for three reliefs:- (i) For quashing the letter no. 41 dated 04.06.2005 whereby a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for his unauthorized stay outside the country from 15.01.1985 to 10.01.1988 and 20.10.1988 to 08.10.1990. (ii) For quashing the order contained in Memo - 2 - No. 868(3) dated 05.10.1999 whereby the petitioner’s representation for sanctioning period of leave for the period stated above was rejected. (iii) For quashing the order dated 03.08.2004 by which the period from 05.11.2002 to 22.05.2003 has been treated to be earned leave though it was the period during which the petitioner was waiting for posting. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 3. From the counter-affidavit it transpires that the first relief, regarding quashing of letter directing to initiate departmental proceeding is not existing now as departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner during the pendency of writ application and now it has been concluded. The petitioner was found guilty of unauthorized absence from 15.01.1985 to 10.01.1988 and 20.10.1988 to 08.10.1990. He has been awarded punishment vide Notification No. 797(9) dated 20.07.2006. The punishments are (i) Severe warning (ii) The period from 15.01.1985 to 10.01.1988 and 20.10.1988 to 08.10.1990 has - 3 - been treated as leave without pay. Petitioner has no grievance, so far the punishment awarded in departmental proceeding is concerned and it has not been challenged. Since the first grievance for which writ application was filed, has become non-existent, this issue is no more required to be decided. Only the third prayer i.e. period from 05.11.2002 to 22.05.2003 is being pressed by the petitioner as it has been treated as earned leave, even though the petitioner was waiting for his posting after giving his joining in Secretariat. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was transferred from Labour Employment and Training Department to Health Department. He joined in Health Department on 05.11.2002 and was waiting for proper posting after joining. He was not attending the office in the Health Department and kept himself away from the headquarter. He never used to sign the attendance register in the headquarter, during the period, waiting for posting. In the counter-affidavit it has not been specified that under which Rule, a person who is waiting for posting is required to sign attendance register on each and every date. It has - 4 - also not been mentioned that at which place in the headquarter such attendance register are kept, which the persons waiting for posting should sign. A vague assertion has been made. The issue relating to the period, waiting for posting whether should be treated as earned leave or as period on duty has already been decided by this court on several occasions. One of such unreported decision has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-10 to this writ application. The facts and circumstances in the present is identical to the case of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11184 of 2003. It has been held, in the decision annexed as Annexure-10 that authorities of the department having adequate knowledge that the petitioner is waiting for posting, but no order is passed for his posting at a proper place. In the circumstances the period for which the petitioner kept on waiting for such posting, he can not be denied or deprived from his salary and all consequential benefits. In the present case also, Respondents were aware of the fact that after giving joining on 05.11.2002 at - 5 - headquarter, petitioner is waiting for posting. Even though, he was not posted any where till 22.05.2003. This period could not have been treated as earned leave, as laches were not on the part of petitioner. Accordingly the period from 05.11.2002 to 22.05.2003 is directed to be treated as period on duty. Petitioner is entitled for his salary as well as all other consequential benefits. Respondents are directed to issue such an order in this regard within eight weeks from the date of representation or the communication of the order of this application. This writ application is disposed of. Vikash/- (Mridula Mishra, J.)