IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5670 of 1994 DR.(MRS.) GEETA VERMA, wife of Dr. (Late) Nagendra Nath Sinha, resident of Mohalla Indra Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, P.S. Seikhpura, District Patna-14 … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Health Dept. of Health Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna 2. The Addl. Secretary, Dept. of Health Education and Family Welfare, New Secretariat Building, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Dept. of Health Education and Family Welfare, New Secretariat Building, Patna … Respondents with CWJC No.6421 of 1994 DR.(MRS.)GEETA VERMA, wife of Dr. (Late) Nagendra Nath Sinha, resident of Mohalla Indra Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, P.S. Seikhpura, District Patna-14 … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Health Dept. of Health Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna 2. The Addl. Secretary, Dept. of Health Education and Family Welfare, New Secretariat Building, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Dept. of Health Education and Family Welfare, New Secretariat Building, Patna 4. The Director-in-Chief of Dept. of Health (Education and Family Welfare), New Secretariat, Building Patna … Respondents with CWJC No.8083 of 1994 DR.(MRS.) GEETA VERMA, wife of Dr. (Late) Nagendra Nath Sinha, resident of Mohalla Indra Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, P.S. Seikhpura, District Patna-14 … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Health Dept. of Health Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna 2. The Addl. Secretary, Dept. of Health Education and Family Welfare, New Secretariat Building, Patna 2 3. The Joint Secretary, Dept. of Health Education and Family Welfare, New Secretariat Building, Patna 4. The Director-in-Chief of Dept. of Health (Education and Family Welfare), New Secretariat, Building Patna … Respondents ----------- 15. 7.5.2010 Heard Mr. Akashdeep, learned counsel for the petitioner in all these writ petitions and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Assistant Counsel to S.C.XI. All these three writ petitions were listed before us for considering the substitution petition vide I.A.Nos. 12540/1999, 12539/1999 and 12541/1999 filed in these three writ petitions seeking to delete the name of the sole writ petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) Geeta Verma and substitute her by her son and daughter, namely, Anand Verdhan Sinha and Mrs. Anuranjini Agarwala. The only reason given for substitution in all these three applications is that on final adjudication financial benefit may accrue to the surviving legal heirs of the deceased writ petitioner and as such, they are required to be substituted. From a reading of the interlocutory applications seeking substitution it appears that the original writ petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) Geeta Verma had died on 21.11.1999 during the pendency of these writ 3 petitions at a point of time she was continuing in service and in fact was yet to superannuate in view of her date of birth being 3.6.1943, according to which she could have continued in service upto 30.6.2001 i.e. upto 58 years of service. It has to be kept in mind that Dr. (Mrs.) Geeta Verma, who was a widow at the time of filing of these thee writ petitions, had assailed an order dated 6.9.1990 in which her period of service from 15.1.1978 to 3.4.1983 was treated to be “break in service” on account of her being absent from duty for more than five years on Ex-India leave in connection with her foreign assignment. As a matter of fact from the impugned order dated 6.9.1990, which is a subject matter of C.W.J.C.No. 5670/1994, it would be clear that late Dr. Geeta Verma while holding the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi had been sanctioned leave for a period of two years only vide Government order dated 12.1.1976 but she continued to remain abroad for a period of seven years i.e. from 15.1.1976 to 3.2.1983 and as such, after joining the Health Department on 4.4.1983 4 she was subjected to a departmental proceeding in which the memo of charges were framed against her vide Resolution No. 1308 dated 19.10.1985. Upon conclusion of the departmental proceeding and on receipt of the enquiry report it was held that her absence from duty from 15.1.1978 to 3.4.1983 during which she was in foreign Countries without any authorized sanctioned leave would be break in her service and for which she would not be entitled for any payment of salary etc. Additionally she was also subjected to punishment of Censure which was to be recorded in her service book. In the second writ petition, C.W.J.C.No.6421/1994, a prayer was made for grant of Junior Selection Grade to her with effect from 19.5.1988, a date earlier than her juniors were given such promotion as also to grant her further promotion on Senior Selection Grade with consequential benefit of pay seniority etc. In the third writ petition filed by her, C.W.J.C.No. 8083/1994, a prayer was made that her name should be included in the panel of Assistant Professor in the year 1992 and give a promotion on the post of Assistant Professor in the faculty of Obstetrics 5 and Gynecology. As noted above, these writ petitions have remained pending for the last 16 years and all of them basically relate to the main issue as with regard to her unauthorized absence from duty for a period over five years. We have carefully perused the materials on record and have found that for such unauthorized absence the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding by framing of charges holding regular departmental enquiry, submission of the enquiry report and passing of the order of punishment after affording her an opportunity to file her show cause reply. The plea taken by her in her show cause reply to the memo of charge in paragraphs no. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 by themselves are good enough to hold that she has virtually admitted the charge of being absent from duty without sanction of leave to her. In fact the petitioner never claimed that she had been given any further extension of her leave beyond the period of two years on or after 15.1.1978 and in that view of the matter, the decision taken for causing break of her service cannot be faulted with in law. It has to be kept in 6 mind that she was gainfully employed in various hospitals in England including at Birmingham and Midland Hospital for women and was also working in National Health Service of England. In that view of the matter, all that she would be entitled to for counting her service from 1.4.1967 to 14.1.1976 as also from 4.4.1983 to the date of her death for earning any benefit of her service as also death cum retirement benefit. Once this Court comes to the conclusion that the break in service was own doing of the writ petitioner, inasmuch as she voluntarily chose to remain in England even without getting her leave sanctioned, the logical outcome would be that the petitioner cannot count her period of absence either for the purposes of continuity in service over the counter parts for earning promotion in Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade or further remain on the post of Associate Professor. The petitioner cannot have based of both the worlds. That being so, while we would allow the substitution petition filed by her son and daughter, who are about 21 years of age and married, we must hold that they would not be entitled for payment of any family 7 pension and all that they can now claim is retirement benefit limited to gratuity only. Thus, in the result, all these writ petitions are dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/