WP(C) 1548/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BK SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-H communication dated 19 .6.2006, by which he was intimated that due to his unauthorized absence from dut y with effect from 1.9.1998, he would not be entitled to receive salary. The Man aging Director of the respondent corporation, in which the petitioner was employ ed, issued the letter. The claim of the petitioner is for salary for the period from 1.9.1998 to 7.8.2001. Be it stated here that pursuant to Annexure-E letter of resignation dated 7.8.2001, the petitioner was released from the services of the corporation. By Annexure-F letter dated 1.11.2001, the acceptance of resigna tion from service was made effective from 1.9.1998. 2. Earlier, the petitioner along with two others had approached this Court by filing writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1944/1998. The writ petition was fi led when the services of the petitioner was dispensed with. Be it also stated he re that the petitioner was in temporary services of the corporation and his such temporary services was extended from time to time, the last extension being up to 30.4.1998. In the last order of extension, it was stipulated that no further extension of service would be granted beyond 30.4.1998. By an interim order pass ed in the aforesaid writ petition (order dated 29.4.1998), it was provided that the petitioners involved in the writ petition should be allowed to continue in t heir services and that their services should not be terminated without the leave of the Court. 3. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 25.4.2006. In the judgment and order, the aforesaid fact of resignation from ser vice by the petitioner was noted. By filing Misc. Case No. 944/2006, the petitio ner had prayed for a direction to the respondents for payment of salary for the period from 1.2.1997 to 7.8.2001. The said prayer of the petitioner was directed to be considered in the following manner: In view of the above, direction is issued to the corporation to consider the ca se of the petitioner No. 3 for payment of salary for the period 1.2.1997 to 7.8. 2001. If the petitioner had been serving under the corporation for the said peri od, he shall be paid his admissible salary. Whatever may be the outcome of consi deration of the case of the petitioner No. 3 for payment of salary for the afore said period, same shall be communicated to him. Entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months form the date of furnishing a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the Misc. Case No. 944/2006 and its enclosure s. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, the Managing Director of t he respondent corporation has issued the impugned Annexure-H communication dated 19.6.2006 to the petitioner intimating that since he was absent from duty unaut horisedly with effect from 1.9.1998, there is no question of payment of salary t o the petitioner beyond the said date. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent corporation, it has bee n stated that although in terms of the aforesaid interim order passed by this Co urt, the petitioner was to continue in his service, but he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly and consequently he was not entitled to receive any salary. Throughout the affidavit filed by the respondent corporation, it has been stated that the petitioner was very irregular in his attendance and that eventually he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly with effect from September, 1998 till he submitted the aforementioned letter of resignation from service. According to the respondent corporation, the resignation tendered by the petitioner was acce pted with retrospective effect i.e. from 1.9.1998 in view of the fact that the p etitioner was found to be unauthorisedly absent from duty from the said date. 6. In the counter affidavit, the respondent corporation has brought on reco rd the show cause notice dated 25.7.2000 issued to the petitioner furnishing the re in the information regarding his unauthorized absence from duty from Septembe r, 1998 till issuance of the show cause notice. By the said notice, the petition er was asked to explain within 15 days as to why action as per the provisions of SR and FR and the Leave Rules, 1934 should not be taken against him. It will be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not even obliquely stated abo ut this aspect of the matter in the writ petition, rather has projected his case that he was present in his duty all thoughout till acceptance of the resignatio n tendered by him. 7. The respondent corporation by its impugned letter dated 19.6.2006 addres sed to the petitioner intimated him about his unauthorized absence from duty wit h effect from 1.9.1998. By the said communication, it was also conveyed that he had neither prayed for leave nor resumed his duty till submission of letter of r esignation dated 7.8.2001. It was further intimated that it was in such circumst ances, the Managing of the corporation was left with no option than to accept hi s resignation with effect from 1.9.1998. By the said letter, the petitioner was conveyed that admissible salary for the period from April, 1998 to August, 1998 would be paid to him expeditiously. 8. In reply to the aforesaid counter affidavit, surprisingly the petitioner has filed two reply affidavits, one is dated 9.4.2008 and the other one is date d 30.11.2009. In the reply affidavit filed on 30.11.2009, there is no mention of the earlier affidavit dated 9.4.2008 and no leave of this Court was also prayed for to file another affidavit-in-reply. In fact both the affidavits are in the form of affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the responden t corporation. 9. In the 1st reply affidavit dated 9.4.2008, the stand of the petitioner i n response to the aforementioned show cause notice dated 25.7.2006 intimating th e petitioner about his unauthorized absence form duty with effect from September , 1998, is stated that the petitioner had responded to the said show cause notic e by submitting his reply dated 10.8.2000. 10. In paragraph 6 of the 1st affidavit-in-reply, it has been stated that in the said reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner had furnished the infor mation that he had been continuously working in the construction site. On the ot her hand, in the 2nd affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner in reference to his purp orted reply dated 10.8.2000 has stated that he had been serving as Deputy Projec t Engineer (Mechanical). Thus there is inherent variation in the statements made in the two affidavit-in-reply. 11. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced th e purported original copy of the letter dated 10.8.2000, which the petitioner ha d allegedly submitted in response to the aforesaid show cause notice. Although i n the body of the letter, there is an endorsement of somebody dated 11.8.2000, b ut such endorsement as a token of acceptance of the letter is hard to be believe d in absence of any endorsement of the official seal. On the face of it, the let ter appears to be a manipulated one to show response to the show cause notice da ted 25.7.2000. Coupled with this, when there is no mention in the writ petition about the show cause notice dated 25.7.2000, there is no question of acceptance of the purported reply to the same allegedly submitted on 10.8.2000 that too wit h the aforementioned variation. 12. I have perused the records produced by Mr. A. Barthakur, learned Standin g Counsel of the respondent corporation, on perusal of which I do not find any s uch reply dated 10.8.2000 to the said show cause notice, rather records have rev ealed the documents pointing out unauthorized absence of the petitioner from dut y from September, 1998 onwards. 13. If the petitioner had responded to the show cause notice dated 25.7.2000 , it was incumbent on his part to mention about the show cause notice in the wri t petition as the same had a direct bearing on the issue relating to the claim o f the petitioner for payment of salary with effect from 1.9.1998 till the date w hen his resignation from service was accepted. The petitioner ought to have disc losed issuance of show cause notice and his purported reply, which would have th rown light about the claim and counter of the parties. Instead the petitioner ha d chosen to suppress the same and filed the writ petition with the projection th at he had been working under the respondent corporation beyond September, 1998 a nd till his resignation from service was accepted. 14. If the petitioner was absent from duty with effect from September, 1998, there is no question o payment of salary to him. Salary is paid for the works r endered by remaining present in duty. When it is established that the petitioner was absent from duty unauthorisedly, no direction can be issued for payment of salary even for the period of absence. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.