CWP (T) No.7053 of 2008 07.09.2010 Present : Mr. R. S. Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “I. To regularise the applicant when it fell due after completion of 10 years in 1990. II. To pay the applicant arrears as regular beldar from the date of his regularisation. III. To pay the applicant arrears of revised pay scale w.e.f. 1986 to 1996 & from 1996 till date of his retirement. IV. To pay the applicant all pensionary benefits without further delay. V. To pay the applicant G.P.F. Gratuity & other consequential benefits arisen out of his total period of service. VI. To pay the applicant his wages from 1999 till date of retirement after treating him on medical leave w.e.f. 16.04.99 to 1.4.2000 when he was sick and his attendance register be duly verified by competent authorities after accepting his medical fitness certificates. VII. To pay the applicant 18% interest on all these amounts mentioned herein above as the respondents have delayed the payments without any cogent reasons. VIII. To quash and set aside impugned order dated 30.6.2000(A/13) while retiring the applicant in absentia with direction to respondent to treat the applicant on medical leave for the period of his absence due to his illness as he remained on medical leave, for complete one year w.e.f. 16.4.1999 to 1.4.2000. To give him all consequential benefits accruing on his retirement or otherwise. Further quashing the departmental proceedings initiated exparte against applicant.” 2. There is no dispute that petitioner had filed OA No.979 of 1995 which was disposed of in terms of order dated 04.05.1998. From the perusal of the said order it is evident that up to 31st March, 1993 all payments due and admissible to him stood paid. With regard to the period 01.04.1993 up to 04.05.1998 it was held that for this period petitioner was found to be absent. 3. It is evident from the record that before passing the impugned order dated 30.06.2000 (Annexure A/13), whereby in absentia, petitioner was relieved from government duty after attaining the age of superannuation of sixty years, a proper inqury was held against him. He remained absent from 01.04.1993 upto the date of his retirement. There is no dispute that petitioner did receive notice about the said action. There is also no dispute that petitioner was afforded opportunity of showing cause and participating in the said inquiry. Petitioner's explanation that he could not join the inquiry proceedings due to his continued illness which made him confined to bed, does not appear to be true. Petitioner has annexed certificates (Annexures A/3a, A/3b, A/3c and A/5) to show that due to his illness he was bed-ridden. It is not so, he has been visiting the hospital for treatment as an outdoor patient on various dates. It is not his case that he was all alone and there was none to look after him. Why did he not request for leave on the basis of medical illness, is not evident. In fact the respondent did afford him opportunity of appearing before the Medical Board, which admittedly was not availed of by the petitioner. This is evident from the documents placed on record by the respondents. Petitioner submitted evidence in support of his illness only after the respondents had taken the impugned action. It is evident that from 01.04.1993 up to the date of his retirement, petitioner did not perform his duties. 4. Hence, it cannot be said that any legally enforceable right stand violated and petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. Present petition is stand dismissed. (Sanjay Karol) Judge. 7th September, 2010 (Raj)