JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned S.C-I for the respondents-State through V.C.

2. The instant writ application was initially preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent Authorities to forthwith release the entire arrears of salary and other dues of the petitioner for the period from March, 1997 till 7.9.2001 along with penal interest.

During pendency of this application an interlocutory application being I.A. No.3441 of 2018 has been filed before this Court for amendment in paragraph No.1 as well as prayer portion of the writ application praying for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.2084 dated 22.11.2008, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary from March, 1997 till 7.9.2001 has been denied and also for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.261 dated 05.03.2018, whereby the aforesaid period has been treated as “Break in Service” and not to be counted for pensionary benefits; and vide order dated 13.10.2020 of this Court, the I.A. No.3441 of 2018 was allowed and the same has been treated as part of the main writ application.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined his service on 21.10.1989. In the year 1998, vide order dated 09.11.1998, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Touring Veterinary Officer, at Jamshedpur. Pursuant to that the petitioner gave his joining on 14.11.1998 but the charge of the said post was not handed over to him for which he represented the authorities by filing several representations (Annexure-3 Series). However, when all attempts failed; he submitted his resignation on 07.09.2001 which was accepted after three years w.e.f. 07.09.2001.

4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two orders being order dated 22.11.2008 and 05.03.2018 have been passed by the respondent No.2 behind the back of the petitioner and without following the principle of natural justice.

He further submits that the petitioner resigned from service on 07.09.2001 which was accepted in the year, 2004; as such, there was cessation of contract between the employer and employee, and as such, the action of the respondents in passing the two impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law.

He further submits that at the time of resignation, the petitioner was given other benefits and no question was raised with respect to break in service. However, the petitioner filed several representations for payment of arrears of salary for the relevant period.

5. Learned counsel contended that on the one hand no principle of natural justice has been followed by respondents in passing the impugned orders and on the other hand the impugned order is bad in law, inasmuch as, the same has been passed after the resignation was accepted; as such, both impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

6. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the salary for the period would not be admissible to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the relevant period has been treated as unauthorized absence and further the final order has been passed in the year, 2018, whereby the said period of unauthorized absence has been treated as break in service; as such, the petitioner would not be entitled for any pension. However, Mr. Saboo could not demonstrate before this Court that any notice was ever issued to the petitioner prior to his resignation nor he is able to justify the delay in passing the order dated 05.03.2018.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and averments made in the respective affidavits it appears that the claim of the petitioner with respect to payment of salary from March, 1997 till 07.09.2001 has been denied by treating this period as unauthorized absence and further the order as contained in Memo No.261 dated 05.03.2018, the relevant period of unauthorized absence has been treated as break