IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9751/2008 Decided on:30.3.2011 _____________________________________________ Kedar Nath. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher in the respondent-department on 3.1.1979. He was promoted to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) on 1.11.1999. He was not permitted to join his duties in Government Senior Secondary School, Mair. Order of transfer was modified and the petitioner was posted in Government Senior Secondary School, Lambloo or Tauni Devi. However, the petitioner again could not join his duties in Government 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Senior Secondary School, Lambloo or Tauni Devi. Ultimately, the petitioner was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Lower Hareta. He was granted time upto 15.2.2000 to join his duties. He joined his duties on 28.1.2000. His salary for the period with effect from 19.11.1999 to 27.1.2000 was not paid. He filed original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the release of his salary. Consequently, the salary for the period with effect from 19.11.199 to 27.1.2000 was released to the petitioner. However, the period of 70 days was treated as leave period. 2. Mr. K.C. Sankhyan has strenuously argued that once the petitioner has been paid the salary for the period with effect from 19.11.1999 to 27.1.2000, this period cannot be treated as leave period. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner had not joined his duties pursuant to order dated 18.11.1999, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Government whereby the period with effect from 19.11.1999 to 27.1.2000 has been treated as leave period. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 3 5. Petitioner was always ready and willing to join his duties at new place of posting. He has obeyed all the orders of the competent authority by going and seeking permission to join his duties. He was not permitted to join his duties in Government Senior Secondary School, Mair. His place of posting was changed from Government Senior Secondary School, Mair or Tauni Devi to Government Senior Secondary School, Lambloo and ultimately to Government Senior Secondary School, Lower Hareta, where he joined his duties on 28.1.2000. Once the petitioner has been released the salary for the period with effect from 19.11.1999 to 27.1.2000, this period could not be treated as leave period. Consequently, the decision of the respondent-State to treat the period of 70 days, as leave period is declared illegal. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The period of 70 days with effect from 19.11.1999 to 27.1.2000 is regularized for all intents and purposes. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 30.3.2011 *awasthi*