IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1288 of 2001 RAM LAKHAN SINGH, son of late Sakal Singh, resident of village Lat, P.S. Hulasganj, District Jehanabad … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Supdt. Of Education, Gaya … Respondents ----------- 4. 17.8.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that there is no dispute that the petitioner was absent from duty from 7.2.1975 to 27.2.1985 and as such, absence without grant of any leave to him during the period of his absence was an unauthorized absence, he should treat himself fortunate that the Government has only treated the period as extra-ordinary leave. In fact for such long period of 10 years of absence the petitioner could have been also proceeded departmentally as the absence from duty for such a long period was itself a major misconduct. Once this aspect becomes clear that the petitioner’s absence from duty for a period of 10 years was wholly unauthorized and he having no other leave to his credit was given extra-ordinary leave, the consequence of extra-ordinary leave in form 2 of Rule 85(b) of the Bihar Service Code providing, inter alia, “85(b) The following periods count for increment in the time scale of post on which the Government servant concerned holds a lien, as well as in the time scale of the post or posts, if any, on which he would hold a lien, had his lien not been suspended:- (i) service in another post other than a post carrying less pay referred to in clause (a of rule 56, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity; (ii) service on deputation; (iii) foreign service; and (iv) all leave other than extra- ordinary leave.” had to be automatically followed which will make the petitioner disentitled either for grant of any increment or salary for the period of absence. Once this aspect becomes clear, there would be no difficulty in holding that the petitioner will not be entitled for either increment or salary or any weightage of the period in which he was absent from duty and that too by way of unauthorized absence. 3 As a matter of fact the reliance placed by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the order of this Court dated 9.3.1998 in C.W.J.C.No. 4775/1997 also in no way would improve the situation because after the petitioner’s joining was accepted he came before this Court for a direction for grant of extra- ordinary leave for the period the petitioner was absent from duty. If that be so, the consequence of grant of extra-ordinary leave, as prayed for by petitioner himself, must also follow. In that view of the matter, the petitioner’s claim for grant of time bound promotion or increment or salary for the period he had remained absent will be wholly inadmissible in law. As a matter of fact, when this Court had quashed the earlier order of termination and the petitioner had joined the services after termination the petitioner’s earlier absence from duty had still remained unauthorized and that is how he himself had made a prayer for grant of extra-ordinary leave for the period of absence. Therefore, merely because his 4 earlier order of termination had been quashed will not give him the right to claim continuity in service for the purposes of increment, salary or time bound promotion, especially when the application filed by the petitioner for extra-ordinary leave was also allowed by the authority. The apprehension of Mr. Sharma that grant of such extra-ordinary leave will also stand in the way of the petitioner in getting continuation of his qualifying service towards pension, however, seems to be misconceived, inasmuch as the very purpose of grant of extra-ordinary leave is to give continuity of service in which if the petitioner has completed ten years of qualifying service, he would become entitled for payment of pension. Subject to the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/