IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 7378 of 2008. Decided on: 11.10.2011. ______________________________________________ Sanjeev Goel. … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on contractual basis in Bhawa Construction Division on 8th December, 1997 for a period of one year. He joined his duties on 20th December, 1997. He proceeded on casual leave on 25th January, 2000 and 26th January, 2000. However, the fact of the matter is that he did not join his duties till 20th October, 2000. His services were terminated on 27th October, 2000. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Mr. Lokender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the termination of the services of his client, dated 27th October, 2000 is illegal, arbitrary, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the services of his client were required to be regularised as a Junior Engineer. 3. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the petitioner has remained willfully absent with effect from 25th January, 2000 upto 20th October, 2000 and it was in these circumstances, services of the petitioner were terminated. He lastly contended that the petitioner has repeatedly been asked by the respondent-Board to resume his duties, but he did not join. 4. I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was initially appointed for a period of one year on 8th December, 1997. The appointment of the petitioner was contractual. He had proceeded on casual leave on 25th January, 2000, but did not resume his duties till 20th October, 2000. He submitted his joining report on 21st October, 2000. He was directed by the Senior Executive Engineer on 4th March, 2000 to furnish medical certificate in support of his leave, otherwise disciplinary action shall be taken against him. He was also informed telegraphically vide Annexure RA-IV on 8th May, 2000 to - 3 - resume his duties. He was again advised to resume his duties by the Senior Executive engineer on 30th May, 2000 vide Annexure RA-V. He was served with a show cause notice on 1st July, 2000 to resume his duties within fifteen days, failing which it was to be presumed that he was not interested to continue his services in the organization and the services will be liable to be terminated. He was again served with a show cause notice dated 24th July, 2000 vide Annexure RA-VII whereby he was directed to resume his duties within seven days. His explanation was also sought vide Annexure RA-VIII, dated 25th October, 2000. He was directed to give his explanation within two days. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner did not resume his duties as directed by the authorities. It is in these circumstances that the services of the petitioner were terminated. Appointment of the petitioner was initially for a period of one year on contractual basis, which was renewed from time to time. A person, who is appointed on contract basis, cannot remain absent for a period of 268 days, that too, without any explanation. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel for the respondent-Board that the petitioner has tried to resume his duties when he came to know that similarly situate persons have been regularised in 2000. According to Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, only those contractual employees were regularised, who had worked in the respondent- Board continuously upto 31st August, 2000. Mr. Lokender Thakur, - 4 - learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that recommendation was also made for regularisation as per letter dated 27th March, 2001. It has come in the reply that the recommendation was taken into consideration, but was rejected since the petitioner has remained willfully absent for a period of 268 days, that too, without any explanation. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the respondent-Board terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 27th October, 2000. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. October 11, 2011. (sck).