1. Application of SRO No. 321 dated 7.12.1995 or SRO No. 514 dated: 22.11.1999 is the sole question involved in the present petition. Since the issue is purely a legal one, Mr. Lone,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not choose to file any reply. The admitted facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner who was working as Accounts Assistant with the respondent-University, applied for study leave with effect from 1.11.1995 for two years. He was asked to resume duty vide letter dated: 17.6.1998. He, however, submitted his joining report on 22.6.1999. Vide order dated: 25.9.1999 petitioner™s joining report was accepted and he was allowed to work pending final decision regarding his aunauthorized absence from duty. Respondent No. 1 passed an order No. 443 (Estt:) of 2000 dated: 21.12.2000 whereby period of absence with effect from 7.11.1995 to 21.6.1999 is treated as Dies-non. This was said to be in terms of SRO 514 dated 22. 11.1999. Petitioner has called in question this order to the extent it treats the period of absence of the petitioner as "Dies-non" and deprives him of all the benefits available to him in terms of earlier SRO 321. Petitioner has also as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document