C.W.P. No. 7900 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7900 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 22, 2009 Jujhar Singh .....PETITIONER Versus Vice Chancellor, Panjab University, Chandigarh and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Vijay Kumar Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk on compassionate ground on 18.9.1997 in Panjab University. On 8.7.2003, the petitioner was permitted to go on study leave to pursue the higher studies at Switzerland on the condition that he will not work or accept any paid job during his stay in Switzerland. Consequently, he was granted extra-ordinary leave without pay w.e.f. 8.7.2003 to 7.7.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that after 7.7.2004 he was requesting the respondents to extend his leave to enable him to pursue his higher studies for a further period of three years, but as per the information supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-2, the petitioner did not apply for extension of leave after expiry of the period of his extra-ordinary leave without pay i.e. 7.7.2004. On 26.8.2004, a show cause notice was issued to C.W.P. No. 7900 of 2009 -2- the petitioner as to why the post held by him should not be declared vacant under Regulation 11.9 of the respondent-University on the ground that he had not joined his duty after availing extra-ordinary leave without pay. It appears that no reply was filed by the petitioner to the said notice. Now after five years of the said show cause notice, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to allow him to join his duties on the post of Clerk with a further direction to count the period of unauthorized absence as leave of the kind due. It has not been disclosed in the petition whether a final decision has been taken by the respondent- authorities in view of the said show cause notice. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through the contents of the petition, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner remains absent after the expiry of the extra-ordinary leave without pay without any further prayer for extension of leave, and files such a petition after more than five years to allow him to join his duties, and looking to the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. May 22, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE