Jx' 1‘3: [“3 WW “20 WQI‘W (W) mmmméw mmé'wm $Wané31 SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Moh an 3hfivastava, J. 27-01 -201 0 Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastz va, counsel for the petitioner. 30vt. Advocate for the State/respondents. Shri Satish Gupta Deputy Heard. The instant petition has been fiied by the petitioner on account or refusai to aiiow the petitioner to join his duties as Rurai Agriculture Extensron Officer at Deverghat. The petitio oer prays that the entire period of abeenoe should be treated as duty and eatery and atiowanoes be atso paid to hrm between the period from 07-03 been stated that the petitioner h: to 13-03-1990 Though, the p rejected, the petitioner had pror remained absent for various rea: 16—‘04-1 991. is that while submitting his Joming report, he The case of the petitioner had also med application along with medical certificate tor leave but him to join. When several representations itioner approached Deputy Director and Jomt Director also and the Joint Director vide memo dated 20-08-1991 directed Deputy Director, Agriculture, Jarjgirto/acce tthejoining otthe petitioner. The Deputy'Dire‘ctor in turn vide his hemp dated 13-094 991 directed respondent No.6~Assistant Project bfhcer, Department of Agriculture, Dabhra to accept 3 the joining of the petitioner. 1990 to 15-04-1991. tn the petition, it has ad apptied for casuat leave from 08-03—1990 etttioner’s application grant of leave wae :eeded on leave and aocordtng to him. he ;ons between the period from 08-03-1890 to respondent No.6 did not allow tailed to evoke response, the pe‘ h WWMW/W mar amfm H120 merwmiaaa) mmmamq bi/ mmi¥wm $Wanéer The petitioner submits that ough he has submitted mg Joxhmg Defare respondent No.6 on 01-10-1991, h wae not allowed to join. The grievance of the petitioner is that though by submitting representation one atter the another, he was not attowed to jo n in spite of oirections given by the Jotnt Director and Deputy Director in thi regard. in the return med by the re pondents, averments made in the petition to the effect that the petitioner w to join duties but he was not atiowed to join, has been seriousiy disputed. in the return in para 12 to 18, the tact of petitioner submitting to join duties has been seriousiy disputed and has been specit'icaiiy denied. Admitted positi n on record is that the petitioner idined his duty after 06~1 0-1993 and contest d the departmentai enquiry, The fact as to whether the etitioner actuaiiy submitted his iOining and was illegally refused to be taken o duty by the respondent No.6. needs to be ascertained. ln the opinion of this Co rt, taking into consideration the aforesaid disputed questions of fact reiating to the factum of joining and alleged retusai, ,it would be appropriate to direct t e concerned respondent authorityto hold a fact finding enquiry by giving pr per opportunity of hearing. if in the tact finding enquiry, it is found that th petitioner was iilegatiy not permitted to join duties in spite of directions giv in Annexure /-\-12 & A43, he would be ‘entitied to salary for the interven' g period from 16-04—1 991 tiii the date his joining hasbeeh accepted i.e.06 0-1993. The petitioner submits that during the pendency‘of this petition, he as been retired from service and because of the dispute pending betore th Court in this matter, his pension has atso not been finalized and he has in i irch. h e t e — i w WW? metm (1am) EamNH%aa&a.¢qy/’ Taking into consideration 1 respondent authorities to conclud period of four months from the date Since in this petition issue raised, it would be open for the petition, if so advised. With the aforesaid direction this order be sent to the conc compiianoe. L9. W)” mw% Fmm@ H@a &Em $a %Ha $ he aforesaid submission, i herebv direct e the enquiry as directed above Within a e of receipt of a copy of this order. with regard to pensionary benefits is not petitioner to raise that issue in separate the petition stands disposed of. A copy of erned respondent authority torthwrth for , Sd/_ Manindra Mohan Shrivastav§ Judge