IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5540 of 2008. Decided on: 9.11.2010. __________________________________________________ Smt. Veena Kumari … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. For respondent No. 4 : Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs: “7(a). That the respondents may be directed to allot next station of posting to the applicant; (b). That the past salary from the year 1985 till today may be ordered to be paid to the applicant; (c ) That the period from the year 1985 till the date of decision may be taken as the applicant on duty/leave of special kind due; (d) that the provident fund deducted from the year 1982 out of the salary of the applicant may be ordered to be added in the statement of accounts; and (e) That the respondents may be ordered to pay the General Provident Fund to the applicant with upto- date interest.” 2 2. The petition is contested by the respondents. Whereas, respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed a joint reply, a separate reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the following stand as per preliminary submission No.1:- “1. That the applicant was posted as T.G.T. in Govt. Middle School, Gaggal (under Govt. High School, Dheera Complex) during 1985. She was transferred/adjusted in Govt. Middle School, Pihri, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (HP) where she joined on 31.5.1985. On the same day she submitted an application for considering her Extra-Ordinary Leave from 1.6.1985 to 15.6.1985. As she was not reporting for duty, the Headmaster of the concerned Complex High School (viz. Govt. High School, Kauna) served notice upon her on 28.8.1985 to report for duty. She did not comply with, but on 2.9.1985 a post card dated 29.6.1985 was posted on 13.7.1985 from Yol for extension of leave till 31.5.1986 by the applicant and the same was forwarded by the Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Pihri to Headmaster of concerned complex school. This was necessitated in view of her seeking extensions merely to avoid posting and performance of duties in Govt. Middle School, Pihri. She did not respond to this notice. She o n the other hand never cared to join her duties in the school. She thus of her own abandoned service right from her submission of her application for Extra Ordinary Leave from 1.6.1985 onwards she herself exhibited an attitude which is conclusive proof her lack of interest in the job. The record shall be submitted for the perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal when ordered to do so.” 3 3. Respondent No.4 has averred as under, vide para 6 (v) of the reply:- “6 (v). In reply to this sub para it is respectfully submitted that the applicant is holder of G.P.F. A/c No. H.Edu.24083. During the year 1982-83 a sum of Rs. 1177/- was credited into the G.P.F. A/c of the applicant, which represents monthly subscription @ Rs. 50/- p.m. w.e.f. 4/82 to 1/83 and arrear of Rs. 677/- credited in the month of August, 1982. Thus, an amount of Rs. 1177/- deposited into the G.P.F. A/c of the applicant during the year 1982-83. As no G.P.F. deductions w.e.f. 2/83 till date is appearing in the G.P.F. A/c of the applicant, thus “Nil” deposits were shown in the G.P.F. a/c statement of the applicant for the year 1993-94 issued by the replying respondent (Annexure A-3 to OA). Thus, there is no discrepancy in the G.P.F. A/c of the applicant at present. The replying respondent has not received any subscription from the concerned deptt. w.e.f. February, 1983 till date.” 4. Some undisputed facts may be noticed first. The petitioner joined employment as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on the establishment of respondent No.2 in the year 1969. She was confirmed as such on 26.7.1979. Thereafter, she continued working as such up to 30.5.1985 when she proceeded on extra ordinary leave w.e.f. 1.6.1985 which was once extended on 26.6.1985. 5. It was against the above backdrop that the petitioner, who did not rejoin duty, was relieved in absentia on 13.9.1985. At that time, she was posted in Government Middle School, Pihri in District Kangra. 4 6. In view of the above, the alleged cause of action having arisen to the petitioner on 13.9.1985 was agitated by her for the first time by filing the Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal which on abolution of the said Tribunal was transferred to this court and has been registered as the present CWP (T) No. 5540 of 2008, only in the month of August, 1998, that is, after lapse of about 13 years except that in the meantime she had made representations Annexure A-4, dated 22.6.1992, Annexure A-7, dated 7.6.1995, Annexure A-8, dated 20.6.1995 and Annexure A-5, dated 27.1.1998 to the Department with a request to post her in any of the schools and to regularize the intervening period of absence. 7. In view of the factual matrix as above which stares at the very face of the petitioner, I am more than satisfied that no ground is made out for grant of any relief to her for the sole reason that no explanation, what to say of a reasonable explanation is coming forth on behalf of the petitioner to explain or justify the unauthorized period of absence once the extra ordinary leave which was extended in June, 1985 lapsed and she was ultimately relieved in absentia on September 13, 1985. 8. However, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents may consider the services rendered by the petitioner during the period 1969 to 13.9.1985 for grant of pension, if any, in accordance with rules. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall also be entitled for all other vested service benefits such as release of the amount of G.P.F. etc. in accordance with law. It is further clarified that in case any leave was due to the 5 petitioner as on 13.9.1985, when she was relieved in absentia, the same shall also be liable to be accounted for as leave of the kind due and the same shall be countable for the purpose of pension and other monetary benefits such as leave encashment etc. The entire exercise in terms of this judgment shall be carried out by respondents No. 1 to 3 within three months from production of a copy of this judgment by her to the concerned authorities within one month from today. In so far as payment of G.P.F. and the accrued interest is concerned, respondent No.4 shall do the needful within the same time on production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner within one month from today and on fulfillment of the requisite procedural formalities in this regard by the petitioner as well as by respondents No. 1 to 3. 9. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 9, 2010. (cr)