IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No.6243 of 2008. Date of decision: 26.7.2010 Sh.Narain Dass …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.B.S.Ranjan, Advocate. For the respondents: S/Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra and Vikas Rathour, Dy.Advocate Generals. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed that he may be permitted to join the service by accepting his joining report, Annexure A/3. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that on the recommendations of the Employment Exchange, the petitioner was given employment as a Class-IV employee vide office order dated 22.2.1995. He worked as a daily waged peon in the Civil Hospital, Chirgaon from the date of his appointment. On 10.12.1998, the petitioner proceeded on four days leave which was due to him as a 2 compensatory leave for having worked on holidays. He was supposed to rejoin his services on 14.12.1998 but he did not do so. He thereafter, submitted his joining report on 31.5.1999, i.e., after five and a half months. Alongwith the joining report, he submitted a medical certificate in which it was certified that from 14.12.1998 to 29.5.1999, the petitioner was not in a position to join his duty. This joining report has not been accepted by the State on the ground that the petitioner did not inform his employer about his illness and thereafter, a notice was sent to his home address. No doubt, this notice was not delivered to him but since the petitioner did not join his duty, some other person was appointed in his place and there was no vacant post available. 3. Here this Court is dealing with a matter where the petitioner is a daily waged employee. If an employee falls sick, it is his duty to inform the employer. In the reply, it has been stated on affidavit by the State that during this period of treatment, the petitioner was an out door patient. This fact has not been denied in the rejoinder. The petitioner has filed an affidavit on record in which he says that due to his illness, he was unable to walk. On 13th March, 1999 he sent a telegaram to the Department 3 informing it that he could not join because of illness but no copy of such telegram has been filed alongwith this affidavit. 4. Leave is not a matter of right. An employee is expected to apply for leave before proceeding on leave except in unforeseen circumstances such as sudden illness. In case of a daily waged employee, he must immediately inform his superiors that he has fallen ill. If he does not do so, it is he who has to suffer. Here this Court is dealing with a situation where for five and a half months the petitioner did not inform his Department about his illness. He thereafter, filed his joining report which was not accepted by the Department. It has also come on record that due to the absence of the petitioner, the daily waged post which he was holding was filled up by appointing some other person. Therefore, no vacant post existed against which the petitioner could be adjusted. 5. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. July 26, 2010 (m) ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge 4