CWP No. 2743 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2743 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 20, 2009 Saroj Bishnoi ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed for directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner salary for the period 8.8.2006 to 13.2.2007. The petitioner joined as Lecturer in Govt.College, Kalka on 8.8.84. On 7.8.89 she moved an application for transfer to Panchkula as her husband was practising as an advocate in this Court and was a resident of Panchkula. On 5.8.2003 in response to the application of the petitioner she was transferred to Panchkula. After four years she was again transferred to Kalka. She again made representation and as a consequence thereof within a period of seven months she was transferred back to Panchkula. After two years again she was transferred to Kalka. It is alleged that during that time CWP No. 2743 of 2009 2 she suffered from prolapsed disc and was advised to avoid forward bending, lifting weight and frequent travelling. Within five years she was again transferred back to Panchkula but that order was stayed. On 14.11.2005 the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Advocate General and then moved an application for retransfer of the petitioner back to Panchkula on the ground of being a couple case and consequently on 4.8.2006 the petitioner was again transferred to Panchkula. After two days on 7.8.2006 the petitioner was transferred as Assistant Director Colleges in the office of respondent No.2 at Chandigarh at that time. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a CWP No. 12457 of 2006. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner moved an application in which she mentioned as follows:- “ It is further informed that I have been restrained by the Doctor from climbing up the staircases. It would be appropriate if my transfer orders are modified and restore to be the original to remain at Panchkula on medical grounds. Till then I may be allowed to proceed on leave on medical grounds. I shall be highly thankful for this kind act.” Ultimately the said writ petition was decided with the following order:- “Mr.J.S.Maanipur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner says that on account of her medical disability,the petitioner is not able to join her new place of posting as she is not in a position to climb up stairs and reach her office,which is at the 3rd floor. The learned counsel further informs the court that the petitioner had applied for leave, which is not being sanctioned. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the competent authority that in case the petitioner applies for leave, then her leave be sanctioned in accordance with law.” CWP No. 2743 of 2009 3 By a subsequent order dated 9.1.2007 the above mentioned writ petition was allowed and the order of transfer of the petitioner was quashed with a further direction that the petitioner shall not be transferred to any other place for a further period of one year and thereafter the petitioner joined back at her favourite place of posting viz. Govt. College, Panchkula. By letter Annexure P-7 the office of respondent No.2 wrote to the Principal, Govt. College, Panchkula to the effect that the petitioner has requested for sanction of leave without pay on medical grounds and the said application should be forwarded in the requisite proforma along with medical certificate. Since nothing further was done, another letter dated 28.5.2007 (Annexure P-8) was written. However, in response to these letters the petitioner wrote another letter wherein she abandoned her claim for leave without pay on medical grounds and claimed salary for the period from 8.8.2006 to 13.2.2007. Ultimately order Annexure P-12 has been passed in the following terms;- “In these circumstances, she was directed to furnish leave application indicating the period of leave along with the medical certificate time and again but she failed to submit the same. Apart, no rest has been advised in the medical certificate furnished by her. Accordingly as per rule no medical leave can be sanctioned to her without the advice of rest by the Chief Medical Officer, therefore,she was issued show cause notice vide this office letter No.14/4-07 Ad-1(4) dated 1.10.2007 as to why the intervening absence period from 7.8.2006 to 13.2.2007 may not be treated as extraordinary leave in the absence of medical certificate and leave application proforma duly filled in. She submitted her reply to the show cause notice on 11.10.07. In her reply she has not narrated any new fact which she submitted earlier. As such after considering her reply she is hereby granted the Extraordinary Leave with effect from 7.8.06 CWP No. 2743 of 2009 4 to 13.2.07. I, order accordingly.” The petitioner challenged that order by filing a CWP No. 19075 of 2008 which was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to pass a speaking order . Consequently a speaking order was passed which has been annexed as Annexure P-16 and has been impugned in this petition. In this order respondent No.2 held as follows:- “Whereas in CWP No. 19075 of 2008 Smt. Saroj Bishnoi has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.4.2008 and order dated 9.9.2008 whereby the period from 8.8.2006 to 13.2.2007 was treated as extraordinary leave and further prayed that to treat the said period as duty for all intents and purpose. After perusal of the record it has been revealed that the petitioner- Smt. Saroj Bishnoi was transferred from Govt.College Panchkula and was posted as Assistant Director Colleges at Chandigarh vide order dated 7.8.2006,but she did not join as such and remained absent to avoid her transfer order. The conduct of the petitioner/representationist was extremely undesirable and highly objectionable in her official capacity. Moreover the representationist is not entitled to treat the said period as on duty because she has not performed any duties during the period in question. She also failed to furnish the medical certificates along with leave application. Despite that, period from 8.8.2006 to 13.2.2007 was granted as extraordinary leave giving maximum benefits of the rules to the petitioner, after taking a lenient view and in no way she is entitled to salary & other consequential benefits for the said period as demanded by the petitioner.” A perusal of these facts reveals that the one point programme of the petitioner since being inducted into service has been to stay at Panchkula coupled with an obdurate refusal to serve at any place even though the same may be 10-15 Kms from Panchkula like Kalka and CWP No. 2743 of 2009 5 Chandigarh. It is also not disputed that complete medical rest was not advised to the petitioner. In the circumstances I am not persuaded to hold that there is any such error in the impugned order which can justify interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 20 , 2009 sunita