Civil Writ Petition No.8866 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 10, 2009 Kanwar Pal Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Ravi Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. On 13/14.10.2003, the petitioner was transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Ghamroj Alipur (Gurgaon) to Government High School, Jodhpuria (Sirsa). The petitioner was relieved on 12.4.2004 to join at the new place. When the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.8866 of 2007 : 2 : reported at School in Sirsa, he was informed by the Headmaster to contact the office of District Education Officer, Sirsa. He was not allowed to join as there was no vacant post of Math Master lying at the school. The petitioner went to the office of District Education Officer, who wrote a letter to respondent No.2 to issue a fresh posting order of the petitioner. On 19.5.2004, a fresh posting order of the petitioner was issued posting him to Government Senior Secondary School, Dariyapur (Fatehabad). Petitioner accordingly joined at the said place on 20.5.2004 and thereafter was transferred to Government High School, Kharati Khera (Fatehabad) on 17.8.2004. The petitioner retired therefrom on 31.7.2006. In view of this, the period from 13.4.2004 to 20.5.2004 of the service of the petitioner has been treated as leave of kind due. On account of this, the petitioner is also deprived of this period for the purpose of encashment as well. The petitioner accordingly has filed this writ petition to impugn this action of the respondents. In their reply filed, the respondents would say that this period from 13.4.2004 to 20.5.2004 has been treated as a leave of kind due instead of duty period as it was a compulsory waiting period. It is stated that the petitioner was duty bound to join at a place within a reasonable time where he was ordered to be transferred, but he failed to abide by the department directions and remained posted there for almost six months. It is not understood as to how the petitioner can be blamed for this period. The petitioner had reported as per the directions to a school where there was no vacant post of Math Master. Thereafter the petitioner was posted to a place where he Civil Writ Petition No.8866 of 2007 : 3 : joined. If he has retained at the place from where he was transferred for some particular period, the responsibility for that would squarely be that of the respondents. Under these circumstances, the action of the respondents in treating this period as a leave of kind due does not seem to be just and fair. The State counsel was accordingly directed to have instructions in this regard vide order dated 17.8.2009. The counsel, however, pleads that he has received no response. The manner in which the cases are being dealt with would not sound satisfactory. Once the directions are issued by the court and the counsel makes an approach, there should be a response either way. There is no cause for any further wait. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. Directions are hereby issued to the respondents to treat this period from 13.4.2004 to 20.5.2004 as a period spent on duty. Necessary consequences of the same would be that the petitioner would be entitled to receive the leave encashment for this period. The same be also released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. November 10, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE