Waiting period for posting while marking attendance cannot be treated as extraordinary leave to deny salary.

The petitioner, an employee of the State, filed a writ petition challenging Memo No. 639 dated 16.02.2024

This order treated a 95-day period (17.04.2011 to 20.07.2011), during which the petitioner was awaiting posting at the headquarters and marking his attendance, as "extraordinary leave"

The petitioner sought the quashing of this order, payment of salary for the said 95 days, and additional arrears for the period of 21.07.2011 to 04.08.2011

During the proceedings, the State filed a counter affidavit stating that the impugned Memo (Annexure-P/1) had been withdrawn and replaced by Memo No. 4208 dated 24.10.2024

Despite the withdrawal of the restrictive order, actual payment had not been disbursed

Whether the period spent by an employee "waiting for posting" while marking regular attendance can be unilaterally treated as extraordinary leave without pay

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of salary and emoluments for the period of waiting for posting following the withdrawal of the impugned order

The Court's proceedings referenced Rule 180 and Rule 236 of the Bihar Service Code, which govern the granting and sanctioning of extraordinary leave

The principles of service jurisprudence regarding "waiting for posting" (duty period) and the right to salary for attendance marked at headquarters were implicitly applied, alongside the administrative obligation to settle claims once a restrictive order is withdrawn

The Court noted that the primary grievance regarding the illegal categorization of the petitioner’s attendance as "extraordinary leave" was technically resolved by the State’s withdrawal of the impugned Memo No. 639

However, the Court observed that despite the issuance of the new Memo (No. 4208) and internal correspondence between the Executive Engineers of Saran Canal and Gopalganj supporting the petitioner’s claim, no actual payment had been made

The Court determined that since the legal hurdle (the original order) was removed, the matter required an administrative direction to ensure the actual disbursement of funds and the final settlement of the claim through a dedicated representative process

The Court ordered Respondent No. 5 to decide the claim within 90 days of receipt of the order

Liberty was granted to the Engineer-in-Chief to refer the matter to a specialized committee assigned for such disputes to ensure the finality of the payment process