IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13458 of 2005 MANOJ KUMAR S/O RAM JANAM RAM, R/O MOHALLA HINOO, PS- DORANDA, DISTT- RANCH, AT PRESENT POSTED AS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL----- -----------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECY. PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECY. REVENUE & LAND REFORMS DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SECY. RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PERSONNEL CLAIM ASSESSMENT (FINANCE) CELL, PATNA 6. THE D.M., SAPAUL 7. THE DEPTY SECY. PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA-----RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 13.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-10 has come to be passed on the direction of the High Court issued in CWJC No. 3469 of 2004. By virtue of this order the respondent authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period 8.4.2004 to 6.3.2005. In the impugned order contained in annexure-10 it is categorically recorded that despite the notification issued by the respondent directing the petitioner to go and join as Executive Magistrate, Supaul, the petitioner did not do so. He went and joined the post at Jagdishpur in the district of Bhojpur. When he was relieved from there for wrong joining he unilaterally came and reported to the headquarter in the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms and continued there without joining at Supaul. All this transpired till the petitioner finally joined at Supaul. This is the background under which the order in question was passed - 2 - against the petitioner treating the period of extraordinary leave as petitioner did not work. The Court has gone through the record, the counter affidavit and the notification issued by the respondent in this regard. The explanation offered by the petitioner does not satisfy this Court since it is his own creation based on his conduct. It seems the petitioner did not like the place of posting given by the respondent therefore avoided to join his actual posting. The respondent had no option but to treat the period of absence of the petitioner as extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioner ought to be grateful to the respondents who have regularized the period of absence by such an order or it would have amounted as break in service. No case for interference is made out. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)