..:%: 't1'-^ •'"••-^^- .-7^''0f. r... .y,^*. ..>s;^*— •». CTTw^ - fwFi^sftar,. M. P. Sfate^m.Tfibiinal. RAIPUtf. ^i^ irpiNft'': ar^t q^ sirft tTs% gyRrP®3Ff^»?«yffip' lBn{t<t^ ^u-l^: aTl^is 3iT?»^t.xro 4i »iftm" t^<? yra I^KT^f-TfSiimTT iB<TWrcn" (16tfl"i*t- wnwTNtftsm-mrsy^ ivfSTv^} att^i«»^IT 1. wNNl^ 5IWT %TTT gf^q q^rgg N xFrfw f^re rrap" |a- ^ a aT^»(iTrapr ^n^r, TP^? ja. ^ $ %. vT^-wf^t wsm irff^t- NT 81 ®<'t^i't::i<ft',ip%i, <"t'^< is:^';i:. ti. fWCTaaS airftffitit, ^TWTrft' faw-wreg?^ j».% j ai^:w'.y^i;9i^;:::%,.gwT?^.3rP8^ 'iid'.r: .f»..,Wt' w".'9^ ^ "•<•' ^';'«B —'"•— ' '< ^ T an^i^r R-ti* sn^r Sb<i'i<fr •Hfi^T ^5[ ^lltlld'1!, »fll*i*is..(<<cli'My STT^T xRrg; ..M.?fe.)..^o.i.a.6.9-/1^" °>a^ IIIICTI shKlch I^^ST" SIT^T ^(TOR ^lfel SB : Hon'ble Shrl Manlndra Mohan Shrlt^astava J. 09-04-2010 Shri LC.Dash, counsel for the pet| Shrt Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt Heard. This pettton has been filed by | 12/10/M passed by the Sfate Governmenjt respect of the perbd from 26/12/92-24/1 26/03/93 to 23/06/93 has been cancelled 18/01/98 has been treated as dies non. duly, working as Sub Englneerin the Dep^ State Government, petltioner suffered an disability. In vjew of the accUent suffere(| grant of leave in respect of different pertop (Annexure A-1). The petiBoner submit^ respondent No.4 vkie his memo dateti respondent No.2 also recommended tor dr (Annexure A-3) addressed to the order was passed on 12/10/99 (Annexui^ accounts In respect ofthe perlod applied to 18/1/98 was declared Dies non. Vidl consldering pettttoner's case for grant of wlth effectfrom 19/01/98, Invalld penslon Submission of learned counsel the impugned order is unsustainable in 14 period, when he was receiving medlcal duttes, he had apptied for grant of leave ^ linpugned order, no reasons have been E|S the petitioner In respect of different 18/1/98, has been treated as period Developlnent of abslence +ll[d'lfl-l iwcif'? fs<S <f»it(i< ^'3l1;OT3]I^?l tloner. AOvocate for the State, the petitioner aggrieved by order dated by which leave granted to the petitioner in )/93; 25/1/93-23C/S3; 24/2S3-25/3/93 and ^nd the period of absence from 26/12/S2 to ]The case ofthe petltioner is ttiat while on ^rtment of Rural Engineering Servtees of the |accklent on 25/12/92 leading to permanent by the petlttoner, ttie petitioner apptied for as statect In his applicatbn dated 22/1/98 that his leave was recommenfled &y 2S/06/98 (Annexure A-2), whereupon, drant of leave vide his memo dated 24/2/99 Commissioner. However, later on, an A-4) by whlch leave granted on varlous for was cancelled and period from 26/12/92 memo dated 28/8/2000 (Annexure A-5), fivalid pension on account of hls retlrement also sanction'ed. petiUoner is that the reason assigned in |iw. He submltsthat h respect of different b'^atment and on that count unable to join his ind that leave was also sanctioned. In the (ssigned tor cancelling the leave granted to and the entire period fixim 2&12/S2 to and declared dies non. *as forlthe t»rit>d [T^^4 an^f^T h-l 3f^l TT^"?rf?^ DBBflti -g%[ ^)|<<|<'|4|, ^y'ltS. fatliyy S^[ XRt^ .^..^lki?.?.S>&S±]^' "W(. 200 WK^fTgiWq? 'fa^ST' 3ff^I ^RITWHfta Per contra, submssion of the petltioner was not entitled to leave h re; submitted ttiat leave cannot be claimed suftered acc'dent andleft his duty on 26< even after ttie pertod sanctioned under t(ie provlslon contalned in Rute 11 of the l^ respect of the period exceedlng 5 years A perusat of the impugned order reasons have been assigned as to why to 23ffl6/93 has been cancelled. From rt( 2) and 24/02/99 (Annexure A-3), It is refll grant of teave and the leave account of tt)e commuted leave, grant of leave was where the peBttoner claimed leave for a cancelling leave granted to the petitlon^i pertod from 26/12/92 to 18/1/98 as dles Thls approach of the authority, Whlle cancelllng leave sancttoned to the| nor it reflects, apptication of mhd to the provisions Contalned in M.PJC.G. contained In the Fundamental Rules. In Uiis vlew of the matter, I am 12/10/99 (Annexure A-4). Consequently, period covered under teave has been li]icli Respondent No.1 shall conslder the entitlement for grant of leave in respec); accondance with rutes applicable. The petitton is thus allowed In pai|t. q^ilfel4t'1 T[W^f^ 'fe1^ ^R<^< ^sif^nan^t l^amed counMl tor the respondent Is Ihat jpect of period exceedlng 5 years. It is atso (is of rlght It Is argued that after petittoner (12/92, he did not come back to join his duty leave. He further submts that in view of I.P./C.G. Leave Rules of 1977, no leave in c|iuld be granted. |ated 12/10/99 (Annexure A-4) shows that no l^ave gianted to the petitioner from 26/12/92 Iterusal of memo dated 25/&9S (Annexure A- l^cted ttiat on consideratun of applieatlon for petitloner entlUing hlm to earned leave and rsctmmended by the auttiority. tt is not a case jieriod exceedlng 5 years. It appears that by |r, the respondent No.1 declared the entire nbn. |n the opinion of Biis Court, is not correct. petttioner, no reasons have been asslgned petit|oner's applteation ftor leave with reference to |Leave Rules of 1977 and the provisions pnabte to uphold the impugned order dated fmpugned order is set aside ft) the extentthe li]icluded In the period declared as cfies non. (ase of the petitioner with regard to hls of the period trom 26/12/92 to 23/6/93 in Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge v^- [^•^4