IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1277 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.12.2008 Rattan Lal .... Appellant vs. State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to judgments and decrees dated 26.07.2006 and 6.10.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, and the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the suit and the appeal respectively. The appellant who is a regular employee of Forest Department of the State of Haryana challenged the denial of salary for the period from 1.12.2001 to 28.01.2002 and 1.03.2002 to 16.05.2002 by way of a civil suit. The respondents filed a written statement contesting his entitlement on the plea that for the latter period he has received salary but for the former period as his application to treat the said period as earned leave was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2002 he was not entitled to wages. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant cannot be denied salary for the period from 1.12.2001 to 28.01.2002 as no inquiry was conducted, show cause notice was issued or punishment imposed. It is submitted that the appellant was induced by an officer in the department to file an application to treat the period of absence as earned leave. The rejection of his application was never communicated and therefore, could not be challenged in this suit. It is argued that as the respondents have failed to produce any evidence with respect to any departmental RSA No.1277 of 2008 -2- proceedings, the courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit and the appeal. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not call for interference. The appellant admittedly remained absent, without leave from 1.12.2001 to 28.01.2002. After he reported for duty on 29.01.2002 he filed an application for grant of earned leave for this period. Vide order dated 20.02.2002, this application was rejected but as is apparent from the findings recorded by the courts below, this order has not been challenged in the suit. As a result, the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to the salary for the period of his absence cannot be accepted. As the impugned judgments do not suffer from any error of law and as no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5.12.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge