IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 16411 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.05.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Janak Raj. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i), (ii) and (iii): “7(i) That the orders dated 21.6.2007 vide Annexure A-9, treating the period of the Earned leave as EOL (without salary) and in denying the salary for the period from 1.10.2006 to 4.12.2006, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to release the salary of the applicant as Lecturer in Geography for the period from 1.10.2006 to 4.12.2006 alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. From the due date till realization forthwith. (iii) That the OM dated 21.6.2006 vide Annexure A-10, being contrary to Rule 32 of the CCS Rule (Leave) Rules may kindly be declared is inoperative in this case or be declared illegal forthwith.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 3: “3. That the present Civil Writ petition preferred by filed by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court is not maintainable. It is submitted that the period from 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 23.9.2006 to 4.12.2006 has rightly been treated as EOL as per the instructions of the Government issued vide letter No. Shiksha-II9Kha) 7-1/20 Vol-I dated 17.6.2004 vide which it has been observed that the officials/teachers relieved from the institutions do not join their new place of posting months together, thereafter they apply for leave of various types to regularise the intervening period of absence. Therefore, it is made clear that in such cases the period of absence should be treated as leave without pay (without break in service) and not regularised by granting leave of kind due. Hence, Annexure A-9 dated 21.7.2007 has rightly been issued.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same before respondent No. 2/competent authority by way of appropriate representation alongwith copy of this judgment within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next three months at par with similarly situate persons such as S/Smt. Rajeshwari Verma, Archana Gupta and Shri Hemraj Dhiman, mentioned in para 6(l) of the petition, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 4. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any shall ensue the decision on the representation. 5. In view of the above the petition stands disposed, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 18th May, 2011 (virender)