The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a temporary employee must be in accordance with the applicable rules, and the employee's claimed illness must be substantiated with credible evidence.

KULDIP SINGH, J.

1. THE judgment dated 6.8.2010 in CWP(T) No. 8222 of 2008 has been assailed in the appeal.

2. THE facts, in brief, are that the father of the appellant while serving Agriculture Department died in harness. The appellant was appointed as Clerk on compassionate ground and joined as such on 31.3.1999. He absented from duty w.e.f. 4.2.2000, he vide registered letter dated 15.2.2000 was directed to resume duties, but the letter was received undelivered. A notice was got published in the Divya Himachal on 7.3.2000 and in Indian Express on 8.3.2000 informing that the appellant was being treated willfully absent from duty and was liable for action under the rules. He was informed to resume duties, failing which his services would be terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The appellant despite the notice failed to resume his duty. In these circumstances, the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 18.3.2000. The appellant was temporary employee.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant so also the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant developed psychiatric problem, he was ckecked up at IGMC, Shimla and doctor advised him rest for one month with medication. The appellant thereafter lost all senses and does not recollect where he wandered. The appellant reached Chamba, he was taken to a clinic and the doctor gave him treatment for one year. The appellant was treated by Psychiatrist at Dharampur. The appellant after treatment was declared fit.

3. THE appellant reported for duty in second week of May, 2001, but he was informed that his services stood already terminated on 18.3.2000. The appellant filed an appeal against his termination on 28.5.2001 but no decision on his appeal was conveyed. The appellant was wrongfully terminated. It has been urged that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record and has erred in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied Arun Kumar Gupta versus High Court of Himachal Pradesh and another 1993 (2) Recent Services Judgments, 449. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment.

4. IT has not been disputed on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was temporary employee and his employment was governed by the Rules. It has been argued that the appellant developed psychiatric problem, he remained under treatment and after recovery he reported for duty and at that time he came to know that his services already stood terminated. It has been submitted that erstwhile Tribunal also accepted the plea of illness of the appellant when Tribunal vide order dated 27.12.2005 condoned the delay in filing the petition. There is no dispute that the appellant absented on 4.2.2000.

The appellant has placed on record the outdoor patient ticket dated February, 2000. The appellant has also produced certificate dated 28.6.2001 issued by Dr. Dev Raj Gupta, indicating that the appellant remained under his treatment from 10.3.2000 to 26.3.2001. The certificate dated 28.6.2001 has been issued on the letter head without indicating whether Dr. Dev Raj Gupta is Allopathic, Ayurvedic or Homeopathic doctor and what is his qualification. Dr. Dev Raj Gupta has also issued another medical certificate for leave extension or commutation of leave dated 28.6.2001 indicating that the appellant remained under his treatment from 10.3.2000 to 26.3.2001. In medical certificate for leave extension or commutation of leave, illness of the appellant has been described under 'mental dipration'.

5. IN first certificate dated 28.6.2001 issued by Dev Raj Gupta, it has been stated that the appellant was taken to the clinic. The appellant has stated that he wandered here and there and he found himself at Chamba. In other words, the appellant was not aware