CWP(T) No. 8390 of 2008 05.10.2010 Present: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for the respondents. There is no dispute that petitioner remained absent for approximately 883 days which is evident from Annexure A-4. There is also no dispute that certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for remaining absent. 2. Independent to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings petitioner approached for regularisation of the leave period in accordance with law. But no action was taken. Consequently petitioner moved the instant petition. 3. In the reply respondents have stated that petitioner’s request for regularisation of the leave period could not be considered for the reason that prescribed application, complete in every respect, was not filed by the petitioner. 4. From the documents annexed with the petition (Annexures A-4 to A-8) it is apparent that petitioner submitted the application on the prescribed format. Deficiencies as pointed out by the respondents were also removed by the petitioner. In fact from document (page 27 placed on record) it is apparent that petitioner’s application was recommended by the Assistant Executive Engineer Jutogh, Elect. Sub Division. -2- 5. Consequently without going into the merits of the matter direction is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application in accordance with law. Decision be positively taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 5, 2010 (PK)