IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12918 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 25.08.2009 Subedar Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-13), to the extent of denial of the salary to the petitioner from 2.12.2006 till 11.2.2009; and further for issuing direction to the respondents to treat period of his absence from duty i.e. 2.12.2006 to 11.2.2009 as duty period without deducting any leave to his credit. In the present case, on 2.12.2006, when the petitioner was posted as Head Cashier with the Punjab National Bank, Khatkar (Jind), he suffered paralytic attack. His case is that he remained admitted in the Hospital from 2.12.2006 to 20.12.2006. He applied for leave. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 1.8.2007, when he was declared fit to CWP No. 12918 of 2009 -2- resume duty, he approached respondent No.3 for joining his duty. Thereupon, he was asked to obtain fitness certificate from the office of Civil Surgeon, Jind. Vide fitness certificate dated 17.8.2007, issued by Civil Surgeon, Jind, the petitioner was found fit to resume light duty. However, in the certificate, it was not mentioned as to what type of light duty, he could perform. Thereupon, the petitioner was asked to report for duty after obtaining clear medical opinion from CMO. Thereafter, the petitioner did not report to join duty by submitting the fresh medical certificate. Ultimately, in view of the order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-13), passed by the respondent bank, whereby the representation/demand notice of the petitioner was decided in terms of the directions issued by this Court on 1.9.2008 in CWP No. 7614 of 2008, the petitioner joined his duty on 11.2.2009. From the perusal of this order, it is clear that the petitioner has been given a light duty as Clerk in Lead District Manager's Office at Jind. Regarding the period of his absence from duty i.e. from 2.12.2006 till the date of his joining i.e. 11.2.2009, the sick leave and privilege leave for the number of days, which were in the credit of his leave account, have been sanctioned and granted. For the remaining period, he has been ordered to be treated on extra ordinary leave without pay, on the basis of rule of `No work No pay'. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Undisputedly, from 2.12.2006 to 11.2.2009, the petitioner CWP No. 12918 of 2009 -3- has not worked. During the said period, for some days, he remained admitted in the Hospital and for the remaining period, he did not join the duty after obtaining the clear medical fitness certificate. In my opinion, in the impugned order, respondent No.2 has already taken a lenient view and every benefit, which could have been granted to the petitioner, has been granted. His claim for pay for the period, during which he did not work at all, cannot be accepted. The said period has been regularised without any break in service. After retirement, he will be entitled for all his service benefits. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. August 25, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE