IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3856 of 2008 Date of decision: 26.07.2010 _________________________________________________________________ Mehar Chand Soni .....Appellant. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and others .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. _________________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for the respondents. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The present petition was filed on the averments set up vide para 6(ii) of the petition, inter alia, which are as follows:- “That power Engineers Association of the respondents board called strike w.e.f. 28.8.91 and consequently asked the applicant to join the strike and issue directions accordingly being the President of the Unit. Applicant did not oblige their request specially owing to the reasons that applicant was to seek directions from the President of the Central Body employees Association. To seek the said directions only, applicant applied for the leave and come over to Shimla for the purpose of consulting the President and other members of the Association to which applicant was the member and President of the Unit. It is 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. -2- submitted that applicant applied for compensatory leave on 20.9.91 for the purpose above stated. It is humbly submitted at this stage only that respondents whose request to join the strike was declined by the applicant, marked the applicant absent from 13.9.91 to 25.9.91. Humble applicant respectfully submits that photo copies of the work done by the applicant during the period from 13.9.91 to 19.9.91 will be produced at the time of arguments to substantiate the fact that the applicant was on duty.” 2. In reply to the case set up by the petitioner, the respondent-Board and its functionaries who have been arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 3 have submitted as under vide the relevant portion of preliminary submission No. 1 (i):- “Since the applicant herein absented himself from the duty wilfully and without any authorisation as such the period of absence w.e.f. 13.9.1991 to 25.9.1991 was to be treated as a period of absence in accordance with the service rules applicable to the employees of the respondents Board, but despite that instead of treating the same as wilfull absence, the respondents Board after taking a lenient view regularised the said period of absence by sanctioning extra ordinary leave without pay for the said period and released the salary for the duty period to the applicant vide Cheque No. A-890723 dt. 5.12.1996 amounting to Rs. 730/-. Though the action of the applicant herein tentamount to cropping up the indiscipline in working of the Board but despite that as a good -3- will gesture, the applicant herein was afforded an opportunity to amend himself by regularising the wilful absence period as extra ordinary leave so that no break in the service is caused and the applicant herein is not deprived of the annual increments which accrued to him on completion of 12 months service.” 3. In view of the above and owing to the subsequent events, nothing much survives for adjudication in the present petition which position is also fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar. The petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. 4. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 26th July, 2010 (pritam)