HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DiVJS!ON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANT PETmONER WRIT APPEAL No.185 of 2008 Dr. Shiv Narayan Mishra, S/o. Late Pandit Shri Jivan Prasad Mishra, (T.G.T.) D.A.V. Public Schooi, Kirandul, S.E.C.L. R/o. Kiranduj, District Dantewada, Sough Bastar (C.G.) ^' t'l 1 te RESPONDENTS ^^ L.. " Versus 1. The Regional Director, D.A.V. Pubiic Schooi, M.P. Zone, Bhilai, District Durg 2. The Principal, D.A.V. Public Schooi, Blshrampur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3. The Prindpal, D.A.V. Pubiic Schooi, Kirandui, Distrlct Bastar (C.G.) 4. The Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L. Bishrampur Area, District Surguja as the Chairman of Local Managing Commlttee, D.A.V, Publlc School Bishrampur, District Surguja (C.G.) 5. D.A.V. Coliege Managing Committee, Chitragupt Marg, New Delhi - 110055 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH (APPEAL TO DiVISION BENCH). ACT 2008 Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appeiiant. JUDGIVIENT (28th August, 2008) The foliowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. •^^^ ^ '<_ ^' ;x Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, iearned counsel for the appeiiant Es heard on admission. 2) Appellant Dr. Shiv Narayan Mlshra has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 11-07-2008, passed in W.P. No. 4748/1997. 3) The appelianVpetitioner in the writ petition was seeking a direction to the respondents-Authorities to permit the petitioner to join his duties at the transferred place and to pay salary for the period from 26-07-1997 to 30-11 -1997. 4) As the petitioner joined his dutles at the transferred place on the strength of the interim order passed in the writ petition, the oniy relief survived for consideration in the writ petition was in regard to payment of his salary for the period from 26-07-1997 to 30-11-1997. The respondents on a thorough enquiry in the matter reached to the conclusion that the petitioner's absence from 26-07-1997 to 30-11-1997 was wlSlfui and deliberate and as such the petitloner's saiary for the above period was withheld on the principie of 'no work no pay'. 5) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, iearned counse! for the appeliant yehemently argued that the respondents have illegaliy withheld the petitioner's saSary for the period from 26-07-1997 to 30-11-1997 and the learned Singie Judge has erred in not giving due weight to the submissions advanced on behaif of the petitioner. 6) From tbe impugned order we gather that it is not in dispute that the petitioner remained absent from 26-07-1997 to F' subbu 30-11-1997. The petitloner had no ieave due in his ieave account at the reievant time. The reasons shown by the petitioner for his absence for the above period were not found worth acceptance by the respondents. The Eearned Singte Judge on a thQrough consideration of the submlssions of learned counse! for the parties also found that the absence of the petitioner for the period from 26-07-1997 to 30-11 -1997 was willful and deiiberate. 7) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei for the appellant and the reasonings given in the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ appeal. 8) The writ appeai, therefore, is liabte to be dismlssed and is hereby dismissed summan!^ Sd/- Chief Justice sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge