WP(C) 3484/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. J. Ghosh, lea rned Govt. Advocate, Assam. The core facts that will be required to be noticed for the purposes of the prese nt adjudication are not in dispute though there is some variance in the pleading s of the parties with regard to certain specific dates which variations can be s afely ignored by the Court as not being material. The petitioner, who was appointed as a Mondal in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara on 4.7.1989, was absent from duties with effect from 4.6 .1993 to 13.2.2000. He rejoined duties after explaining his absence by reference to certain medical problems that the petitioner had to undergo which fact was d uly supported by requisite medical certificates and papers. On being satisfied, the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, allowed the petitioner to rejoin service with effect from 14.2.2000 and, in fact, had recommended for regularization of the p eriod of the petitioner’s absence from 4.6.1993 to 13.2.2000. The said recommend ation of the Deputy Commissioner not having been accepted by the Personnel and F inance Department and instead a decision having been taken to allow the petition er to remain in service with effect from 14.2.2000 but as a fresh appointee the said decision has been put to challenge in the present writ petition. Two significant facts, briefly noticed in the preceding part of this order, may be highlighted at this stage. The petitioner was absent from duties with effect from 4.6.93 and had reported for duties on 14.2.2000. The period of the petition er’s absence from duties being nearly seven years, under F.R. 18 the Deputy Comm issioner was well within his rights not to allow the petitioner to rejoin duties and instead to initiate a departmental proceeding against him in accordance wit h F.R. 18. The same was not done and the petitioner was allowed to rejoin dutie s and has continued to render service till date which fact would be evident from several orders of transfer made in the case of the petitioner after he had rejo ined duties with effect from 14.2.2000. The actions of the Deputy Commissioner i n allowing the petitioner to rejoin duties and in recommending for regularizatio n of the period of absence with effect from 4.6.1993 to 13.2.2000 are related fa cts which have to be taken note of by the Court in moulding the ultimate conclus ion that will have to be arrived at in the instant case. The second significant fact that must be noticed is the decision of the Personne l and Finance Department, details of which have been stated in paragraph 6 of th e departmental affidavit filed. In the absence of a decision of the State Govern ment to condone the absence of the petitioner, which was for over five years, it was open for the respondents to discharge the petitioner from service after fol lowing the procedure prescribed by the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Ru les, 1964. No such proceeding has been drawn up and no steps in accordance with the alternative option open under F.R. 18 have been initiated. Instead, the Pers onnel and Finance Department had taken the decision that the rejoining of the pe titioner in service with effect form 14.2.2000 should be treated as a fresh appo intment. Such a course of action, perhaps, is not what has been contemplated by F.R. 18. The aforesaid facts had to be taken note of by the Court to notice the consequen tial facts, which emanates therefrom, namely, that the petitioner’s absence from duties for the period in question was on good grounds which had satisfied the D eputy Commissioner to allow him to rejoin duties on 14.2.2000 and which had also led the Personnel and Finance Department to decide that the petitioner may be t reated as a fresh appointee from the date of his rejoining i.e. 14.2.2000. The n ext consequential fact is the service rendered by the petitioner from 14.2.2000 till date on which there is no dispute. Having regard to what has been stated above, the Court is of the view that the e nds of justice will be adequately met if the period of absence of the petitioner with effect from 4.6.1993 to 13.2.2000 is to be regularized on a notional basis and only for the purpose of continuity in service so as to enable him to receiv e necessary and consequential pensionary benefits at the time of his retirement from service. The petitioner, obviously, will not be entitled to any pay and all owances for the period during which he was absent. A statement has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on acco unt of the non-regularization of his period of absence with effect from 4.6.1993 to 13.2.2000 the salary of the petitioner from 14.2.2000 has also not been paid . The petitioner having worked from 14.2.2000 will, naturally, be entitled to hi s pay and allowances from the said date. The amount due to the petitioner shall now be disbursed forthwith and without any delay. The writ petition, consequently, stands allowed to the extent indicated above.