1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2727/1997 Ambrish Kumar v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Date of Order :: 29 th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. SL Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. MS Singhvi, for the respondents. .... By instant petition for writ a direction is sought by the petitioner for the respondents to allow him to join the duties immediately and further to make payment of back wages from the date he reported to resume work. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner, an Assistant with the respondent Insurance Company was placed under suspension under an order dated 2.12.1981, contemplating disciplinary action that ultimately resulted into order of penalty dated 18.11.1983. While imposing penalty as per para 23(d) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1975”), suspension of the petitioner was revoked and he was posted at Bhatinda Divisional Office. Despite posting at Bhatinda the petitioner did not join duties and, therefore, by 2 letter dated 7.1.1984 the Senior Divisional Manager of the Divisional Office at Bhatinda advised him to report on duty immediately, but in any case not later than 17.1.1984. An appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected on 11.9.1984, and while doing so he was again advised to report on duty immediately. It appears from record of the case that no effort was made by the petitioner for joining the duties, and at the first instance in the month of July, 1996 he submitted a representation to the respondents for permitting him to join duties. Subsequent thereto also he submitted certain representations but of no consequence. This petition for writ is preferred with the allegation that despite having no order for removal or dismissal from service the employer is not permitting him to resume duties. I have considered the argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner and also examined the record. It is the position admitted that the petitioner did not report on duties at Bhatinda in pursuant to the order dated 18.11.1983. At the first instance he submitted a representation on 9.7.1996 showing his intention to resume duties. Nothing is said by the petitioner in entire petition for writ as to why he did not report on duties for a period of about 13 years. An inference can very safely be drawn 3 for abandonment of service, if a person is not reporting on duties for such a long term without any just and valid reason, and without adequate information. There may be a valid reason for remaining absent from duties for a long term and in every case such absence cannot be treated as abandonment of service, but for that there should be some just, fair and rational reason. In the instant case availability of such reason is conspicuously absent. Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr., reported in (2008)10 SCC 115, while dealing with a case of similar nature held that where an employee reappears after two decades, he cannot be treated as having continued in service nor can he be given benefit of qualifying service for pension. In the case of Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2198, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that where an employee remains absent from duties for a long period and a notice sent to correct address of such employee received back with postal endorsement “refused”, a clear presumption arose in favour of the employer and against the delinquent to treat such non-reporting on duties as abandonment from service. 4 In Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2783, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case of an employee who failed to resume duty on non-extension of leave, held that such an employee had deemed vacated his post, even if it was without show cause notice. A Single Bench of this Court in Dr.Ram Chandra Khatawal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in WLR 1998 Raj 829, while placing reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Jeewan Lal (1929) Ltd., Calcutta v. Its workman, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1567, and Shahoordul Haque v. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar & Anr., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1896, held that on long unauthorised absence without any just reason, an employee ceases employment. As said in preceding paras the petitioner remained absent from duties from 1983 to at least up to July 1996 without any just reason and, therefore, his case is nothing but abandonment from service. The petitioner is having no right to claim for joining duties and for getting back wages. Accordingly, the petition for writ is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.