IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3194 of 2008. Date of Decision: 05.04.2010 Tulsi Ram Bhatia …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the adverse entries recorded in his ACR for the year 1993-94 be quashed with all consequential benefits. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Senior Assistant in HPPWD, Bharari B&R Sub Division. On 3.4.1993 he was transferred to Junga Sub Division and was relieved from Bharari w.e.f. 16.4.1993. The petitioner however did not join at Junga and remained on medical leave till 19.6.1993. He thereafter remained on earned leave from 20.6.1993 to 17.7.1993. On 17.7.1993 itself an order was passed transferring him back to Bilaspur Division. The petitioner reported for duty before the 2 Superintending Engineer, Bilaspur on 19.7.1993 but was directed to report to the Assistant Engineer, Bharari and joined there on 20.7.1993. In the petition, as originally filed, the petitioner made no reference to his having re-joined at Bharari and in fact gave the impression that he had worked in Bharari for only 5 days under Sh.R.K. Kainth, Assistant Engineer and therefore Sh.Kainth was not entitled to write his ACR. The other allegation made was that his joining report at Bharari was not accepted and therefore he had to join at Bilaspur. The State controverted these facts and pointed out that the petitioner had subsequently joined in Bharari Sub Division on 20.7.1993 and remained posted there till 21.2.1994 and during this period he served under Sh.R.K. Kainth, Assistant Engineer who was his reporting officer. Faced with this situation the petitioner came up with a new story in the rejoinder. Now his case is that in fact his substitute had joined at Bharari, Sub Division and after he rejoined he was not given any work by Sh.R.K. Kainth. Since he was not given any work the adverse remarks that he was “lazy and delays” were not justified. The petitioner, in the first instance, did not come out with truth. He put up a case that the reporting officer had seen his functioning for only 5 days and was not entitled to write his ACR. It was only after 3 the State set the record straight that he came up with a new case. This cannot be permitted. Even if we go into the merits of the case as now put forward by the petitioner it is obvious that he has no case whatsoever. We are dealing here with a person who on being transferred does not join at the place of posting but goes on medical leave and then proceeds on earned leave. As soon as his transfer orders are withdrawn he becomes fit to join service. The petitioner now wants this Court to believe that he was never assigned any work by his Reporting Officer. This was not the allegation made in the Original Application. Further more, if no work was given to the petitioner, what prevented him to complain to the superior Officers that the Assistant Engineer be directed to give him work. The remarks made by the Reporting Officer have been made on his assessment of the work of the petitioner. This Court cannot sit over the assessment made by the Assessing Officer unless the same is totally perverse or the Rules have not been followed. This having not been proved, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. April 5, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.