The period of 'Leave Without Pay' should be considered as continuity in service for the purpose of ACP/MACP, as the relevant rules and scheme did not provide for its exclusion.

PRAMATH PATNAIK, J.

1. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has initially prayed for quashing order dated 10.10.2012 whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected in relation to entitlement of time bound promotion and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to forthwith grant time bound promotion to the petitioner, as has been done in the case of one Md. Ali Raja; further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to grant benefit of the 1st/2nd time bound promotion, which has been admitted by the respondents vide their own decision dated 10.10.2012, with all consequential benefits.

2. Before proceeding further, it would first be necessary to quote order dated 16.09.2014:

“The first prayer in the instant writ petition in relation to rejection to his claim for time bound promotion is not made out as admittedly the petitioner since his appointment on 18.07.1987 had completed only 8 years 5 months and 13 days till 01.01.1996, i.e. till the date of scheme for time bound promotion was in vogue. Accordingly, the said prayer of the petitioner is rejected.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be entitled for second ACP on completion of 24 years of service, which has been ignored by the respondents by refusing to reckon the period of his services from 02.09.2000 to 25.12.2007, which has been regularized as leave with out pay due to absence of petitioner in the said period. However, the said ACP scheme is not on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore is allowed to come prepared on the aforesaid aspect after two weeks.”

3. The facts, which are necessary for adjudicating the matter, lie in narrow compass:

The petitioner initially joined Indian Army on the post of Sepoy and after retirement in the year 1987, he joined as Member of Flying Squad under Forest and Environment Department on 17.07.1987 and since then he is discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction to the respondents-authorities. During his service tenure, the petitioner was transferred from one place to another and while continuing as such, vide order dated 16.06.2000 the petitioner was transferred to Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa, but it is alleged that he did not join the transferred place and remained absent from duty for about seven years i.e. from 27.06.2000 to 25.12.2007. However, after reporting to his duties, the said period was accepted as “Extraordinary Leave” i.e. leave without pay.

4. In the meantime, being aggrieved by not-grant of Time Bound Promotion, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 6868 of 2004, in the light of decision taken in the case of Md. Ali Raja Vs. State of Bihar & Ors passed in C.W.J.C No. 2857 of 1997 (R). The said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 09.01.2012 with direction to the respondents-authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner by passing speaking order. In compliance thereof, the respondents have passed order dated 10.10.2012, which is impugned before this Court.

5. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sweta Singh, A.C to learned S.C. I for the respondents-State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner before the respondents-authorities have been taken into consideration before passing the impugned order. Further, the Hon’ble Court while disposing of representation of the petitioner in the light of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6868 of 2004 vide order dated 09.01.2012 did not consider the laws laid in Md. Ali Raja Case (Supra) as directed by this Court and even not a single whisper has been uttered with regard to Md. Ali Raja Case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that transfer of the petitioner to Saranda Forest Division was an illegal transfer, against which, the petitioner approached this Court, which was disposed of with direction to decide the claim of the petitione