IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 10080 of 2008 Decided on October 12, 2011. Umesh Lata …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, who was appointed as Vidya Upasak in August, 2000, vide Annexure A-7 and posted in a school on 14.9.2000, attended the school only for 42 days upto 5.10.2003. In addition to that, she was on Maternity Leave for 135 days, Casual Leave for 6 days and training for 30 days. For rest of the period, she remained absent and the total period of absence was 803 days. She wanted to resume her duty on 25.8.2003, vide joining report, Annexure A-3. She having remained absent for quite long a time before submitting aforesaid joining report, Block Primary Whet her report ers of t he l ocal pap ers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - Education Officer referred the matter to the Deputy Director, Primary Education, on the same day and did not allow her to join. 2. On 28.8.2003, petitioner filed Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. That was disposed of by the Tribunal on the same day, vide order, Annexure A-2. Direction was given to Deputy Director, Primary Education, to consider the Original Application filed by the petitioner, as representation and to take final decision thereon, within four weeks. Deputy Director took decision vide Annexures A-1 and A-8, which are dated 6.10.2003 and 25.11.2003 respectively, and terminated the services of the petitioner, on account of wilful absence. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid two Annexures and has filed the present petition for quashing the said orders and directing the respondents to allow her to join duty, with back wages and seniority etc. 3. Respondents have filed reply, in which it is stated that petitioner having remained absent from duty wilfully, her services have rightly been terminated vide impugned orders, Annexures A-1 and A-8. 4. During the course of hearing of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that as a matter of fact, case of the petitioner was required to be - 3 - considered and decided by the Director, Primary Education, in view of some instructions of the government and letter issued by the Director, Primary Education, copy Annexure R-V, which is dated 29.5.2002. According to him, this letter was issued before filing of the earlier Original Application, on which order Annexure A-2 was passed. He has taken me through the aforesaid Annexure R-V. According to Annexure R-V, which is addressed to all the Deputy Directors, Primary Education, H.P. by the Director, Primary Education, all matters, pertaining to wilful and unauthorized absence of Vidya Upasaks, category of teachers to which the petitioner belongs, are required to be submitted to Director, Primary Education, for appropriate decision by him. Learned counsel submits that matter was required to be considered by the Director, Primary Education, in view of the aforesaid document, Annexure R-V. He says that the matter may be disposed of, with a direction to Director, Primary Education, to decide the same, in terms of Annexure R- V. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission, writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to Director, Primary Education, impleaded as respondent No. 2 herein, to deal with and decide the matter of alleged wilful / unauthorized absence of the petitioner, at his - 4 - own level, as per Instructions, copy Annexure R-V, issued to the Deputy Directors, Primary Education. He shall take final decision in the matter within two months. Disposed of. October 12, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.