CWP No.1241 of 2011 21.01.2011 Om Parkash Vs. State of Punjab and others Present: Mr.V.K.Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Permod Kohli, J. The petitioner was initially engaged as work-charge Wireman on 89 days basis in the Construction Cell of the Department of State Transport, Punjab on 24.8.1983. It is alleged that he was appointed against a regular post. He continued till 19.1.1987. It is stated that the petitioner was thereafter, appointed on a regular post on being requisitioned by the Employment Exchange and posted in Punjab Roadways, Muktsar Depot, Muktsar on 20.1.1987. On account of his regular appointment, he was referred for medical examination. Medical certificate dated 30.8.1988 (Annexure P-3) is placed on record. The petitioner claims that he remained posted in Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana Depot, Ludhiana with effect from the year 1988 to 1991 and in Punjab Roadways, Patti Depot, Patti, with effect from the year 1991 to 1994. He proceeded on earned leave w.e.f. 1.2.1994 to 28.2.1994. It is alleged that he extended his leave vide application dated 1.3.1994 and by telegram till 5.4.1995. Admittedly, extended leave was never sanctioned. The petitioner claims to have attempted to rejoin the duty but he was not permitted to join. It was only in the year 2010 that the petitioner seems to have served a demand notice on 10.9.2010. The respondents have passed the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 declining the request of the petitioner to rejoin the duty. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that petitioner was only a work-charge employee. He was never appointed on regular basis. He proceeded on leave w.e.f. 1.2.1994 to 28.2.1994 and thereafter, never reported for duty despite a telegram and a letter to him. The Construction Cell of the Transport Department was disbanded on 31.7.1995 and some of the work-charge employees were later adjusted in some other depots but the petitioner never returned to join the department. The petitioner has now approached the respondents after 14 years for rejoining the duty. CWP No.1241 of 2011 [2] The order impugned is a detailed one and the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-join after 14 years particularly when he was only a work-charge employee. I do not find any merit in the writ petition or a valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. (Permod Kohli) Judge 21.01.2011 sd