2025:JHHC:21836 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4552 of 2011 …. Kamla Prasad son of Karu Prasad, resident of village-Chabura, P.S.- Konch, Distt.-Gaya at present resident of vill:-Murli Bagicha P.O. + P.S.-Gumla, Distt.-Gumla (Jharkhand) …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, Nepal House, P.O. +P.S.-Doranda, Ranchi 3. The Engineer in Chief Rural Engineering Organization Nepal House, P.O. + P.S.-Doranda, Ranchi 4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation Nepal house, P.O. + P.S.-Doranda, Ranchi 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Karmtoli Road P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-Gumla 6. The Under Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, At-Jharkhand Mantralaya, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town & Dist.-Ranchi-834004 (Jharkhand) … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C)-III For the State of Bihar : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, AC to GA(Bihar) …… ORAL JUDGMENT IN COURT 19/31.07.2025 Heard both sides. 2. This petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashing of the letter as contained in Memo No.4797 (S) Ranchi dated 18.08.2017 (Annexure-‘A’ of S.A. dated 01.12.2017) issued by Under Secretary to the Government, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, through which the compulsory waiting for posting period of the petitioner from 12.02.1997 to 23.11.1998 (650 days) and from 16.05.1999 to 28.10.1999 (166 days) has been treated and regularized as the Extra-ordinary Leave. 3. It is submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, 2025:JHHC:21836 2 petitioner has filed I.A. No.9256 of 2017 for amending the prayer in the writ petition, which was allowed vide order dated 29.11.2017 passed by (Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Chandrashekhar) this Court and petitioner was permitted to challenge the order dated 18.08.2017 by incorporating in the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to fault on the part of the department, the petitioner was kept under waiting for posting for the period from 01.09.1996 to 31.10.1999. However, during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was made certain payment, but the salary for the period from 24.09.1996 to 28.10.1999 is still due to him. It is submitted that said period, totaling 816 days, have been treated / regularized to be an extraordinary leave, which could not have been done and this was fault on the part of the State and not on the part of the petitioner who was waiting for posting during such period and hence the said period could not be treated to be an extraordinary leave. It is submitted that I.A. No.9256 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner, enclosing Letter dated 15.02.2010 issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar, Rural Works Department, Patna, which also supports the case of the petitioner and the petitioner was not allowed to join. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance upon the judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K. V. Jankiraman & Ors. reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, para-25 and in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kripa Nand Singh & Anr. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 375, page-1 and 8. It is submitted that this is a not case of no work no pay, rather, this is a case in which petitioner had not been allowed to join his duty, without his no fault and hence he may be allowed to payment 2025:JHHC:21836 3 from 24.09.1996 to 28.10.1999 and hence this writ petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that petitioner had not worked during the said period and his joining was not accepted and as such he is not entitled to any pay. It is submitted that department has taken lenient view by treating the said period of 860 days as Extra-ordinary leave. In support of the same, learned counsel for the respondent-State relied upon the specific averment made in the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 11.07.2025 filed by the respondent no.6. It is submitted that petitioner, the then Junior Engineer, was relieved by Block Office, Dumri vide order bearing memo no.863 dated 23.09.1996 passed by the Block Development Officer, Dumri to give his joining in the office of Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Engineering Organization, Patna, where the petitioner gave his joining in the office of Engineer-in- Chief, Rural Engineering Organization, Patna on 29.09.1996. Then vide order dated 31.01.1997 erstwhile Rural Engineering Organization, Rural Development Department, Bihar, the office order no.6636 dated 18.12.1996 was stayed and the petitioner was posted at Bagodar Block, Giridih on the post of Junior Engineer and where petitioner submitted his joining in the office of Block Development Officer, Bagodar on 03.02.1997. However, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih, vide its letter no.57 dated 11.02.1997 returned the services of the petitioner to the erstwhile office of the Rural Development Officer, Bihar on the ground that one Junior Engineer is already posted in the office of Block Development Officer, Bagodar. In the meantime, petitioner made representations dated 14.12.1997 and 15.02.1997 before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Engineering Organization, 2025:JHHC:21836 4 Bihar by accepting his joining or in alternate, offer him posting elsewhere and he also made representations during the period in between 29.02.1997 to 09.05.1997 continuously. It is submitted that in the meantime, petitioner also preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.2040 of 1997 before the Ranchi Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.1998 directing the State to offer posting to the petitioner within a period of one month. In compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, the petitioner was posted in the office of Chief Engineer-03, Rural Engineering Organization, Chhotanagpur Sub-Division, Ranchi vide order bearing memo no.790 dated 10.03.1999 passed by the Rural Development Department, Bihar. Thereafter, petitioner gave his joining on 17.03.1999. The petitioner was further posted in Works Branch, Jaldega, Works Division, Simdega on the post of Junior Engineer vide office order no.20 dated 10.04.1999 along with memo no.510 dated 10.04.1999 passed by the office of Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Chhotanagpur and Santhal Pargana Sub-Division, Ranchi. Thereafter, petitioner gave his joining on 16.04.1999. However, the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Simdega informed through its letter no.123 dated 24.04.1999 to the Chief Engineer-03, Rural Engineering Organization, Chhotanagpur Sub- Division, Ranchi that petitioner has given his joining in the Works Division, Jaldega on the vacant post due to transfer of one Sri Bhola Prasad Singh, Junior Engineer. However, the Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna had stayed the transfer order of Bhola Prasad Singh, Junior Engineer vide office order contained in memo no.4658 dated 21.10.1998. Then he sought guidelines in respect to the joining of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide letter no.494 the 2025:JHHC:21836 5 Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Works Division, Simdega has not accepted the joining of the petitioner due to the imposition of Model Code of Conduct on account of Lok Sabha Elections. However, after the elections when the Model Code of Conduct came to an end, the joining of the petitioner was accepted vide letter no.335 dated 20.10.1999. Therefore, the petitioner was not in charge of any post for a period from 24.09.1996 to 28.10.1999 and hence his salary was not paid and the same period was treated as an extraordinary leave. 7. Having heard the counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, it appears to be case of excess harassment meted out to the petitioner by the act of the State authority. 8. It is evident that for one and other reason, the petitioner was not allowed to join in the Dumri, Bagodar Block, Giridih and even transferred to Jaldega in Simdega District, for one and other reason, despite submitting his joining. He was made to suffer and he remained under waiting for posting for prolonged period for more than three years. 9. It further reveals from the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 11.07.2025 filed by the respondent no.6 itself as discussed above that the petitioner has submitted his joining firstly and though the petitioner was relieved from Block Office Dumri vide order no.863 dated 23.09.1996 and petitioner had submitted his joining in the office of Engineer-In-Chief, Rural Engineering Organization Patna on 29.09.1996 itself but vide order dated 31.01.1997 passed by the office of Rural Engineering Organization, Rural Development Department, Bihar, the petitioner was posted at the Bagodar Block, Giridih on the post of Junior Engineer. Even the petitioner submitted his joining in the office of Block Development Officer, Bagodar on 2025:JHHC:21836 6 03.02.1997 but the Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih, vide its letter no.57 dated 11.02.1997 returned the services of the petitioner to its erstwhile office of the Rural Development Officer, Bihar on the ground that one Junior Engineer is already posted in the office of the Block Development Officer, Bagodar. 10. It is further admitted by the respondent-State by filing supplementary counter-affidavit dated 11.07.2025 that the petitioner thereafter made representations on 14.02.1997 and 15.02.1997 before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and Engineer-In-Chief, Rural Engineering Organization Bihar and also on 29.02.1997 to 09.05.1997 requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih to allow him to remain posted in the Bagodar Block but no action was taken. 11. In the compelling circumstances, the petitioner had preferred writ petition being, C.W.J.C. No.2040 of 1997 before the Ranchi Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.1998 at Annexure-A, which reads as under:- “ Heard. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the Memo No.57 dated 11.02.1997 passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih, whereby the joining of the respondent no.6(Jai Prakash Singh) has been accepted and the prayer of the petitioner to accept the joining on the said post has been refused. From the perusal of Annexure-5, it appears that the respondent no.6-Jai Prakash Singh has already joined in pursuance of the Govt. notification and, as such, joining of the petitioner has been refused. As one person has already joined, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih, was fully justified in refusing to accept the joining of the petitioner. Accordingly, no direction can be issued by this Court to accept the joining of the petitioner. However, the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, is hereby directed to take steps for the posting of the petitioner at the proper place 2025:JHHC:21836 7 within two weeks from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. The question of payment of salary of the petitioner will be decided after he is posted in pursuance of the order to be passed by the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application stands disposed of.” 12. After order of Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench the petitioner was posted in the office of Chief Engineer-03, Rural Engineering Organization, Chhotanagpur Sub-Division, Ranchi vide order dated 10.03.1999 where the petitioner submitted his joining on 17.03.1999 itself. However, petitioner was further posted in Works Branch, Jaldega, Works Division, Simdega on the post of Junior Engineer vide office order no.20 dated 10.04.1999 read with memo no.510 dated 10.04.1999 passed by the office of the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Chhotanagpur and Santhal Pargana Sub-Division, Ranchi. Then the petitioner gave his joining on 16.04.1999. In the meantime, the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Simdega vide letter no.123 dated 24.04.1999 informed the Chief Engineer-03, Rural Engineering Organization, Chhotanagpur Sub-Division, Ranchi that earlier Bhola Prasad Singh was transferred and the same was stayed vide its office order contained in memo no.4658 dated 21.10.1998 and he has sought guidelines regarding joining of the petitioner. 13. Thereafter, letter no.494 of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineer Services, Works Division, Simdega, the joining of the petitioner was not accepted due to the imposition of Model Code of Conduct on account of Lok Sabha Elections. However, after the elections, when the Model Code of Conduct came to an end, the joining of the petitioner was accepted vide letter no.335 dated 2025:JHHC:21836 8 20.10.1999. This is gross negligence on the part of the State- authorities for keeping the petitioner waiting for posting for long and an indefinite period and he was made to suffer on the lapses on the part of State-authorities erstwhile State of Bihar. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K. V. Jankiraman & Ors. reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 at para-25 which reads as under:- “Para-25 We are not much impressed by the contentions advances on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17 (1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.” 15. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kripa Nand Singh & Anr. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 375 at paras-1 and 8 which reads as under:- “Para-1 Leave granted. “No work, no pay”, is the rule and “no work, yet pay”, is the exception. Compulsory waiting period is one such exception. But to qualify for the exception, an employee has to establish that he had made earnest endeavours yet that he was not able to join duty for no fault on his part. He must also show his earnestness to join duty. Voluntary waiting period is not covered by the exception. Para-8 In the judgment dated 31.01.2002, the first round of litigation in Kripa Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, the High Court had made it clear that his entitlement for salary for the period between 24.02.1986 to 16.07.1991 would depend on whether he was at fault or not in joining any post during the period in question. His conduct speaks volumes to show that he was at fault. He waited for five years to get another posting. He had not made any representation during the said period for joining duty in any other place. His writ 2025:JHHC:21836 9 petition itself is after ten years of his joining duty at a place apparently of his choice. Though the order is dated 05.02.1986, he had joined duty only on 17.07.1991. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the period between 24.02.1986 to 16.07.1991 is to be treated as a compulsory waiting period. It is in fact a voluntary waiting period”. 16. The case of the petitioner complete shows that the petitioner had gone to various place for joining and even after accepting the joining he was transferred elsewhere and his joining was not accepted unless and until 20.10.1999. 17. Accordingly, the letter as contained in Memo No.4797 (S) Ranchi dated 18.08.2017 (Annexure-‘A’ of S.A. dated 01.12.2017) issued by under Secretary to the Government, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, treating / regularizing 816 days as Extraordinary leave, is hereby set aside and the petitioner is held to be entitled for payment for the said period of 816 days, in the light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. The respondents are directed to release the salary of 816 days to the petitioner forthwith preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment failing which the respondents will be liable to pay statutory interest. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition no.4552 of 2011 is, hereby allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Rohit/