- (1.) THROUGH this civil review application, the order dated 10.2.2009 passed in I.P.A. No. 169 of 2006 has been ought to be reviewed, whereby and whereunder, the State of Jharkhand has been directed to make payment of salary to the opposite party No. 1 for the period from 8.6.2005 to 31.1.2007 during which period the opposite party No. 1 pursued his higher studies in Veterinary Science.
(2.) MR . P.K Prasad learned Advocate General, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the opposite party No. 1 was granted study leave with full salary for pursuing Post Graduate study for the Sessions 2003 -04 and 2004 -05 vide Annexure -1 to the review application, but the opposite party No. 1 by making forgery in the said notification represented before the writ Court and also before the appellate Court that he has been granted study leave for the Sessions 2004 -05 and 2005 -06 and the Court accepting the plea of the opposite party No. 1 passed the order for making payment and as such, the order dated 10.2.2009 is fit to be set aside. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the other ground for seeking review of the order is that the opposite party No. 1 on being allocated to the Bihar cadre was relieved by the State of Jharkhand on 31.5.2005, whereupon opposite party No. 1 joined in the State of Bihar on 19.9.2005 and hence the State of Jharkhand was not obliged to pay salary from 19.9.2005 and onward, but the opposite party No. 1 did represent before this Court that he did join the State of Bihar on 31.1.2007 and on this mistaken fact, the Court passed order for making payment of the salary for the period from 8.6.2005 to 31.1.2007, as opposite party No. 1 had already been paid salary for the period from 20.12.2004 to 7.6.2005 and, therefore, the order passed in L.P.A. No. 169 of 2006 is fit to be recalled.
(3.) AS against this learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 submitted that right from the beginning, the State has been agitating the point that the opposite party No. 1 by making forgery had changed the date of Sessions as 2004 -05 and 2005 -06, but that fact was denied by filing reply to the counter affidavit in W.P. (S) No. 3115 of 2005 and the Court on being satisfied did not think it proper to take cognizance of that fact and proceeded with the matter of hearing of the said writ application granting indulgence to the State to seek instruction on the other point and, therefore, the State at the time of final disposal of the said writ application did not agitate this point and in fact, could not have agitated that point.;