The court considered the petitioner's unauthorized leave for 20 years and ruled that he was not entitled to salary for that period but directed the authorities to consider his case for payment of retiral benefits, specifically pensionary benefits, as he had rendered 10 years of regular service.

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Sr. SC-I for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 9.8.2008 issued under the signature of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 9.8.2003 has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to accept the joining of the petitioner in Dumka District as Rajswa. Karmchari and to pay all outstanding dues to the petitioner on account of salary which has not been paid since 1992.

2. The facts as derived from the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Rajswa Karmchari in the office of Circle Officer, Litipara, District-Sahebganj. From 1.7.1992 to 30.8.1992, the petitioner was granted leave from the competent authority for enabling him to look after his old and ailing mother, who was on the death bed. In the midst of his sanctioned leave vide order dated 28.7.1992 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, the petitioner was transferred from Litipara Circle Office to Rajmahal Circle Office within the district of Sahebganj. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to his relieving on 13.8.1992 from the Office of the Circle Officer, Litipara, made representation dated 4.8.1992 before the D.C., Sahibganj, which is apparent from his representation dated 19.8.1992 before the CO., Litipara praying therein that his mother is seriously ill and as such, the transfer order be kept in abeyance but no heed was paid to the representation of the petitioner though similarly situated persons were considered and their transfer orders were interfered with but due to bias, mala fide and vindictive attitude, the petitioner was harassed with the motive to throw him out of service. Meanwhile, the petitioner was again transferred to Dumka vide order dated 23.10.1992 issued by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. The petitioner was also not allowed to make any attendance nor the salary of the petitioner was paid and as such, the petitioner was compelled to file representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj stating the arbitrary and mala fide action of the respondents regarding his harassment. On the representation of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner vide its order dated 6.11.1993 directed the Circle Officer, Litipara to forthwith relieve the petitioner so that he could join to his new place of posting at Dumka. In spite of the specific order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner was not relieved neither he was allowed to put his signature or make his attendance in the office of the Circle Officer.

Against the said arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioner also represented before the higher authorities and as such, finally a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur to forthwith permit the petitioner to join Dumka district after being relieved from Litipara. But the D.C., Pakur vide his order dated 30.5.2001 brought to the notice of the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana that though the petitioner was relieved on 7.8.1992 to join the said post but the petitioner did not report for duty and as such, when the petitioner was subsequently transferred from Sahebganj to Dumka vide order of the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, he was never relieved neither he reported for duty. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed representation on 4.1.2002 for relieving him to join Dumka district as for last 10 years, he was never relieved to join the district of Dumka despite the specific order by the then Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj nor he was allowed to make his attendance neither the salary of that period was paid to the petitioner nor any order of suspension or initiation of any departmental proceeding was issued against him.

When no heed was paid to his representations, the petitioner knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his grievances by preferring writ petition being