Sunil Kumar vs State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Patel

Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner mainly for the reason that the respondents have passed the order dated 08.08.2008/11.08.2008 (annexure 18 of the memo of petition) whereby the joining of the petitioner in the service was not allowed.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed in the Adult Education Scheme flouted by the Central Government on 04.2.1985 as an Accounts Clerk. Then the petitioner worked upto 1988. Thereafter he was suffering from mental disease and he could not remain present. He has undergone some treatment and the year 1990 a certificate was issued by the competent doctor that now he is fit to join his duties. The certificate is at annexure 10 to the memo of petition. Despite this certificate, the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duties and thereafter W.P.S. No.5616 of 2002 was instituted which was decided by this Court vide order dated 30th January, 2008 with slight modification dated 27th February, 2008 and the matter was remitted to the State of Jharkhand for its decision and thereafter, the respondents have passed the impugned order at annexure-18 and thereafter the petitioner is not at all resumed his duties. The petitioner is now not suffering from any mental disease and is ready to work and therefore, let the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to resume his duties with the respondents-State authorities.

Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was on unauthorised leave from 1988 onwards. Moreover, the petitioner was appointed in Adult Education Scheme and only after working for approximately three years, he has remained absent without any authority. The Scheme flouted by the Central Government has also been closed in the year 1992 and in the changed situation, the order at annexure-18 is absolutely just, proper, equitable and in accordance with law and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following grounds: -

a) The petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Clerk on 04.2.1985. Thereafter he worked upto 18th July, 1988.

b) On and from 18th July, 1985 i.e. from 19th July, 1985 the petitioner applied for five days'' leave upto 24th July, 1988 and thereafter he was absent. It further appears from the facts of the case that looking to annexure 10, petitioner was fit to be joined in the year 1990. The certificate issued by the concerned doctor is dated 15.11.1990. After one dozen years, he had preferred W.P.S. No.5616 of 2002 which was decided on 30th January, 2008 with slight modification dated 27th February, 2008 whereby the matter was ordered to be decided upon representation. Looking to the order at annexure 18 dated 08.08.2008/11.08.2008, there is no illegality in the order while passing impugned order. Long absentism for several years has been rightly appreciated.

c) Moreover, the scheme under which the petitioner was appointed i.e. Adult Education Scheme which was flouted by the Central Government has also been closed in the year 1992.

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and because of long absentism of the petitioner, no error has been committed by the respondents while passing the impugned order dated 08.08.2008/11.08.2008 at annexure-18 of the memo of petition.

In view of this fact, there is no substance in the writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.