IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7091 of 2003 DR.BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri Ram Kripal Singh, resident of village Kurso, P.O. + P.S. Madhopur, District Madhubani, A/P Medical Officer, Addl, Primary Health Centre, Bazar Samiti, Darbhanga … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Under Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga … Respondents. ----------- 6. 29.7.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing Memo No. 970(2) dated 2.5.2003 passed by the respondent no.2 and issued under the signature of respondent no.4 contained in Annexure 12 of the writ application. (ii) To issue an order/orders, direction/directions or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to 5 to pay the petitioner the arrears of salary of the following periods: (A) 5.6.1983 to 23.11.1983 (Illness period) after adjusting that period on duty/leave. 2 (B) 24.11.1983 to 22.12.1985 (waiting for posting period) after treating that period on duty. (C) 9.8.1986 to 11.10.1987 (partly absent period and partly suspension period) after treating that period on duty. (D) February, 1988 to 18.6.1992 (suspension period) after treating that period on duty. (E) 19.6.1992 to 28.12.1992 (waiting for posting period) after treating that period on duty. (F) The aforesaid dues amount be paid with interest at the rate of 15 percent annum from the date of due to the date of actual payment.” In support of the aforementioned prayer Dr. Amarnath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that true it is that this Court by an order dated 30.7.1997 in C.W.J.C.No. 3515/1996 and thereafter again on 8.12.1999 in C.W.J.C.No. 6662/1998 had given liberty to the respondents to take a decision with regard to regularization of the period of absence of the petitioner but then the authorities were supposed to take a decision strictly in accordance with the observations/ directions given in the said orders. In this context 3 his specific case is that the petitioner was placed under suspension on the charge of his remaining unauthorized absent from duty from August, 1986 but when such suspension order was issued on 30.6.1987 and the charges against the petitioner were also not proved in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner would be entitled for payment of full salary for the period 30.6.1987 to 28.11.1991. Counsel for the State with the help of the counter affidavit filed in this case would explain that the matter was gone into by the competent authority and an order has been passed for regularizing the service by allowing the petitioner admissible leave for the period of his unauthorized absence. While it may be true that the other period of service of the petitioner for the period he has not worked, could be regularized by granting him leave as admissible in his leave account or even by granting the extra-ordinary leave, the period of suspension from 30.6.1987 to 28.11.1991 could not be treated to be the period of leave. In that view of the matter, 4 when the petitioner was also exonerated and his order of punishment was also quashed by this Court in the order dated 8.12.1999 in C.W.J.C.No. 6662/1998 with a direction to determine the question as to how the period of absence of the petitioner had to be counted and to what salary the petitioner would be entitled under law, the period of suspension could not have been included in view of the findings recorded by this Court in the order dated 8.12.1999 in the writ application filed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court would remit the matter back to the Principal Secretary of the Health Department to re-examine the issue in the light of the observations made above with regard to full payment of salary for the period the petitioner had been placed under suspension. As with regard to the claim of the petitioner for his remaining period on the ground of his waiting for posting, if the petitioner would adduce evidence of his doing so, the authority will reconsider its earlier decision failing which the period in question could only to be regularized by 5 granting him admissible leave. In order to expedite the matter the petitioner may file a compact representation alongwith his evidence and a copy of this order and the Principal Secretary of the Health Department will thereafter take his decision within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such representation. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/