IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8441/2008 Reserved on: 17.3.2011 Decided on:23.3. 2011 _____________________________________________ Manoj Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Lalit Sehgal, Advocate vice Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Physics) in School Cadre on 9.11.1999. He was posted in Government Senior Secondary School, Barotiwala. He submitted an application on 17.11.1999 seeking three years extraordinary leave without pay to enable him to complete his project equivalent to Ph.D. from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. Leave of the petitioner was sanctioned by 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 respondent No.3 for a period of three months on 31.8.2000. Thereafter, petitioner submitted an application on 25.10.2000 for extension of leave. He also made inquiry on 19.3.2001 and 17.7.2001. Respondent No.3 sought clarification from the petitioner on 9.11.2001. Petitioner informed respondent No.2 on 19.11.2001 that project was likely to be completed on 30.4.2002. He submitted application for extension of time on 25.4.2002 upto 1.7.2002. Thereafter services of the petitioner were terminated by invoking the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. 2. Mr. Lalit Sehgal has strenuously argued that the termination of the petitioner could not be made without holding regular inquiry. According to him, petitioner was entitled to extraordinary leave to enable him to complete the thesis. 3. Mr. A.K. Bansal has vehemently argued that the leave of the petitioner was sanctioned only for a period of three months on 31.8.2000 and thereafter leave was not sanctioned and it was a willful absence and the services of the petitioner have rightly been terminated. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 3 5. Petitioner joined his duties on 9.11.1999. His leave was sanctioned only for a period of three months. Since the petitioner was appointed on probation/temporary basis, he was entitled to only three months leave. He should have joined his duties immediately after the completion of three months. He submitted an application on 25.10.2000 seeking extension of leave. He also made inquiries from respondent No.2 on 19.3.2001 and 17.7.2001. The Directorate of Education has also sought information from the petitioner through respondent No.3 about the likely date for joining of duties by him. Petitioner informed respondent No.2 that the project was to be completed by 30.4.2002 and also applied for extension of leave on 25.4.2002 upto 1.7.2002. The fact of the matter is that petitioner was temporarily employed and was only entitled to three months extraordinary leave. The petitioner, at the time when he was appointed as Lecturer (School Cadre), knew that he has to complete his project equivalent to Ph.D. In these circumstances, it was not prudent on his part to join the duties. He has remained willfully absent after the completion of three months’ extraordinary leave. Since the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and has remained willfully absent, his services have rightly been terminated by the 4 respondents by invoking the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 on 30.4.2002. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.3. 2011 *awasthi*