IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4679 of 1996 JAGDISH PD.GUPTA @ JAGDISH GUPTA son of Sri Jagarnath Prasad Gupta a resident of village- Biraily Bazar, P.S- Madhipura, P.O.- Maheshwa, District- Madhipura, at present posted as Computer Primary Health Centre, Mahua, P.O.- Mahua, District- Vaishali. ------------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Director in Chief, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Additional Director (Administrator) Health Service, Bihar, Patna. 4. Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hajipur, (Vaishali). ----------------- Respondents. ----------- 5 11.11.2008 The petitioner has challenged annexure- 13 by which it has been held that the petitioner would not entitled to be paid more than his subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. From the impugned order it appears that the petitioner was absent from headquarters during the period of suspension. The writ petitioner had moved this Court earlier by filing C.W.J.C. No. 10060 of 1993 which was disposed of on 8.2.1995. In that writ application he had challenged the order of suspension and also prayed that his subsistence allowance should be paid. The matter was remanded to the Additional Director to consider the grievances of the petitioner in accordance with law. After the order of this Court, the petitioner was apparently posted and allowed to join at the Primary Health Centre, Mahua as - 2 - stated at paragraph 32 of the writ application. The petitioner has admitted the fact that he was absent during the suspension period, the reason given in the writ application is that his wife and son had died during suspension period and the petitioner himself was suffering from certain illnesses. No documents have been placed on record to support these statements that the petitioner was suffering from illness or that in fact he had applied for leave for the period for which he was absent. It appears from the impugned order, the Assistant Director, Health Services-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hajipur has treated the absence of the petitioner as break in services. This Court had directed that the Additional Director should consider the entire facts before passing a final order.In view of the fact that the pleadings of the petitioner are incomplete and also in view of the fact that no counter affidavit has been filed and the order passed is cryptic, I cannot decide the merits of the claim of the petitioner. However, if the petitioner files a - 3 - representation within three weeks along with the copy of this order annexing all the relevant documents, the Director in Chief, Health should pass speaking order within a period of four months with respect to the fact whether the absence of the petitioner during his suspension period would be treated as break in service. As far as the claim of the petitioner for payment of subsistence allowance during the alleged period of absence, that would naturally be taken into consideration while passing any order. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)