IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.4388 of 2008(OA No.993/97 Judgment Reserved on 30.6.2009 Date of decision: 20.7.2009 Partap Singh …….Petitioner Vs. H.P.S.E.B. and Ors ....….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.D. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate Kuldip Singh, Judge The OA No.993/97 on transfer to this Court under the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008 has been registered as CWP(T) No.4519 of 2008. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 25.7.1992 he was working as Beldar at Kandaghat. He along with other employees manually carried 63 KVA transformer from Kandaghat to Palhech for 4 Kilometers and during this process he suffered internal grievous injuries. The petitioner had to take long leave for treatment of internal grievous injuries and finally when he was declared fit, he reported his joining on 6.3.1995 to respondent No.3, who instead of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 accepting his joining wrote a letter to Executive Engineer ( E) Division, HPSEB, Solan on 9.3.1995 and stated that the petitioner had proceeded on leave from 20.8.1992 which was sanctioned on 23.8.1992 and did not turn up. The petitioner desired to resume his duties had submitted the medical report on 6.3.1995. The petitioner thereafter made several enquiries from respondent No.3, but to no avail. The petitioner ultimately submitted a representation dated 3.6.1996 Annexure P-4 stating therein that the petitioner had become disabled while working with the respondents and had to undergo long medical treatment for his recovery. The representation dated 3.6.1996 of the petitioner has not been decided. The petitioner had joined beldar with the Board on 7.11.1984 and worked upto 25.7.1992 when he sustained internal injuries. The petitioner had proceeded on leave w.e.f. 26.7.1992 which was granted to him and he resumed his duties on 6.3.1995. The petitioner has thus completed more than 240 days in each calendar year from 1984 to 1995. The Board has violated Section 25F and Section 25H of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The persons junior to petitioner have been retained in the service. The petitioner has prayed the following main relief:- (a) The petitioner may be treated in service w.e.f. 7.11.1984 continuously. (b) the respondent may be directed to accept the joining report of the petitioner Annexure P-2 immediately. ( c) In the alternative the respondent may be directed to decide the representation moved by the 3 petitioner to the respondent (Annexure P-4) 3. The petition was contested by the respondents who have contended that the petitioner had left his daily wage service of his own and petitioner has filed the petition with ulterior motive just to take undue benefit. The petitioner was engaged daily wage beldar w.e.f. 7.11.1984 and he worked as such upto 26.7.1992. The petitioner proceeded on three days casual leave from 27.7.1992 to 29.7.1992 for urgent domestic work as per Annexure RA-II. On 30.7.1992 he had applied for earned leave w.e.f. 31.7.1992 to 20.8.1992 for repair of his house vide Annexure RA-II. On 21.8.1992 vide Annexure RA-III, the petitioner informed the respondent No.3 that he was not feeling well. Thereafter petitioner did not resume his duties. The respondent No.3 issued notices Annexures RA-IV and RA-V to petitioner but he did not respond. The respondent No.3 vide Annexure RA-IV dated 17.11.1992 afforded last opportunity to the petitioner to resume his duties latest by 20.11.1992, failing which other person will be engaged at his place. The petitioner again failed to comply with the orders. The petitioner is thus not entitled to any indulgence. It has been denied that petitioner had carried 63 KVA transformer from Kandaghat to Palhech. The petitioner had lost lien with the Board. 4. Heard and perused the record. There is no dispute with respect to the work of the petitioner from 7.11.1984 to 25.7.1992 with the respondents therefore, there is no occasion to consider the case of the petitioner that he should be treated in service from 7.11.1984 onwards. However, the question is definitely to the effect whether petitioner has any legal ground in 4 support of his case that he should be treated in continuous service of respondents from 7.11.1984 or 25.7.1992 onwards. The petitioner vide application dated 25.7.1992 Annexure RA-1 had applied three days casual leave from 27.7.1992 to 29.7.1992 on account of urgent work at home. On 30.7.1992 he had applied earned leave w.e.f. 31.7.1992 to 20.8.1992 for repairing his house. On 21.8.1992, the petitioner informed respondent No.3 that he was not feeling well, the leave be granted to him on medical grounds. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 19.9.1992 asked the petitioner to resume the duties. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 3.11.1992 directed the petitioner to intimate the latest position for joining the duties along with medical certificate. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 17.11.1992 had given last opportunity to the petitioner to resume his duties upto 26.11.1992 otherwise other person will be engaged at his place. The petitioner maintained complete silence with respect to letters of respondent No.3 Annexures RA-IV to Annexure RA-VI. The petitioner broke his silence and vide Annexure P-2 dated 6.3.1995 reported his joining to respondent No.3 who referred the matter to the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Solan on 9.3.1995 vide Annexure P-3 . The Annexure P-3/A is the medical certificate issued by Kishore Clinic to the effect that Partap Singh whose signature is given below is suffering from Chronic Pepticular(sic) Hypertension is unable to attend from July 31,1992 to March 6,1995. The medical certificate further provides a period of rest is absolutely necessary for the restoration of his health. Now he is fit to resume his duties. The medical certificate Annexure P-3/A is dated 6.3.1995. In medical 5 certificate Annexure P-3/A there is nothing to indicate that petitioner was remained under the treatment of the doctor who had issued the medical certificate. The petitioner was allegedly injured on 25.7.1992, the medical certificate is dated 6.3.1995. It is very strange that from 25.7.1992 to 5.3.1995 the petitioner did not get himself treated at any government hospital. The medical certificate Ex.P-3/A is apparently full of suspicion, no corroborative evidence such as medical prescription; bills have been placed on record to show that in fact during this period the petitioner actually got some treatment. It appears that in order to support his case the petitioner procured medical certificate Ex.P-3/A. 5. The petitioner has not given any worth believing explanation why he did not join after the initial period of leave granted to him was over. The petitioner has absented himself from the end of August, 1992 and he surfaced only on 6.3.1992 when he gave his joining report. The petitioner was given repeated opportunities to resume his duties. It is a clear case of abandonment of engagement by petitioner with respondents for which the respondents cannot be blamed. The petitioner has failed to make out any case. Resultantly, petition fails which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. July 20, 2009 (sks)