1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENET APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2005 Sarita Laxmanrao Barbare, Age 44 Years, Occup. : Nil, R/o C/o Shri Girish Bakre, House No. 278,Behind Shri Ram Mandir, Shimpi Galli, Camp Area, Pune. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar Through its Chief Executive Officer,At Post Tq. And Zilla Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.Pradeep L.Shahane,Advocate for Appellant. Shri. S.V.Deshmukh,Advocate holding for Shri. S.T.Shelke,Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Shahane, learned counsel appearing for the 2 appellant placed reliance on the following judgments: 1] Gaurishankar Vishwakaram Vs. Eagle Spring Industries Pvt. Ltd and others, in Writ Petition No. 2904 of 1983, dated September 3, 1987. 2] Arun Vaman Apte Vs. Arvind Mohniraj Pathak and another, in Writ Petition No. 2994 of 1984 decided on 23.06.1992. 3] Bhimrao Rambhau Abhang Vs. Kohinoor Engineering Company, reported in 2005 II CLR 952. 3. The learned counsel further submits that even if employer states that appellant was absent from 1989 to 1997, under service conditions, employer ought to have initiated proceedings for taking action against the appellant, which has not been taken in this case. 4. In the facts of the case, the learned Counsel submits that since the year 1994 onwards the appellant was filing her continuous representations every year for allowing her to 3 work. The appellant was discharging her duties as Nurse since 1982, as regular employee. The counsel, therefore, submits that rejection of the claim of the appellant-petitioner on the ground of abandonment of service, is not sustainable. 5. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Zilla Parishad submits that for taking action, respondent-Zilla Parishad did not have proper address of the employee. The appellant- petitioner without any reasonable and justifiable reason remained absent since long period. In between the period from 1989 to 1994 the appellant-employee did not file any application stating the reasons for her absence. Therefore, it is the case of abandonment of service and accordingly both Courts rightly appreciated the facts of the case and dismissed the claim. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in the matter of Blow Plast Limited Vs. Nafisa Shabbir Hussain Mashraqui reported in 1997 II CLR 926 and Iqbalmohmad Yusufali Patel Vs. Deputy 4 District Development Officer (Revenue) Bharuch, reported in 1991 II CLR 422. 6. We have perused the judgments cited supra. At the outset, we observe that the employer ought to have been diligent and vigilant to take action. It was noticed that in this case the appellant- employee was not attending the duties for number of years. The employer was free to resort to appropriate remedies in case it was noticed that the employee without any reasonable and justifiable reason had remained absent for a long period. But there is another facet of the case. In the facts of the case, we noticed that the appellant was working as Nurse during the period from 1982 to 1989. The appellant claims that she was on leave from 1.6.1989 but thereafter did not bother to join service. The appellant submits that she tried to join service on 07.02.1990 but she was not allowed. There is no evidence supporting the contention of the appellant in this regard. The appellant filed certain applications- 5 representations every year from 1994 onwards till appellant filed complaint in the year 1997. 7. Considering the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge arrived at conclusion that for the period of more than five years appellant remained absent from service. Thereafter, nearabout seven to eight years of accrual of the cause of action the appellant approached the Court. 8. In exercise of our jurisdiction under Letters Patent Appeal, we do not find any serious infirmity or perversity in the view adopted by the Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. 9. The Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahemdnagar to take note of this case and take review of such cases, if any, pending in the office, in accordance with law. 6 10. Registry to forward the copy of this order to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK