Rasila Ram vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Sharma, J 1. The petition has been filed for grant of the following reliefs vide para 7(i) to (iv):

7(i) That the suspension orders dated 4.4.1998, may kindly be quashed and setaside.

(ii) That the respondents may be directed to regularise the period of absence w.e.f. 23.3.1996 till 4.4.1998 in view of the medical certificates vide Annexures A2to 6 to A9to 11, forthwith

(iii) That the respondents may be restrained from taking any further departmental action against the applicant, till the ailment of the applicant after 4.4.1998, which is still continuing.

(iv) That the respondents may be directed to give the salary due and admissible to the applicant for the period w.e.f. 23.3.1996 till 04.4.1998, in view of the medical certificates referred to above, forthwith.

In the reply filed on behalf of respondents, the following stand has been taken in paras 3 and 6(x) and (xi):

3 That unless the Inquiry Officer gives his finding this honourable Tribunal will not able to give its finding as such the petition is premature.

6(x) The period of illness which is genuine can only be regularised after the outcome of the departmental enquiry. It is however, admitted that the applicant has submitted medical certificates from P.G.I. Chandigarh, for some period.

6(xi) The matter is being enquired into in the D.E. And any action can be taken on the finalisation of the same. It is, however, submitted that salary for the month of May, June and July, 1996 has been released in favour of the applicant. The salary for the period under dispute will be released only after the outcome of the enquiry. It is also submitted that as per record only 30 days Earned leave and 40 days half pay leave was in the credit of the applicant on 30.6.96, whereas the applicant has remained absent for more than 659 days and is still absent.

In view of the above reply, particularly the averments set up vide para 6(x) thereof and Rule 8.4 of subrule (c) of the Punjab Police Rules, as were applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh at the relevant time, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has already retired from government service in March, 2000, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may point out the same by way of an appropriate representation before the second respondent within one month from today alongwith copy of this judgment and the second respondent shall decide the representation within another period of three months.

Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, shall follow the decision on the representation within the same time.

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.