IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that administrative inaction can justify treating an employee's absence as continuous service under extraordinary leave provisions.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :

Petitioner, who is scheduled to retire on 29.02.2024, has filed the present writ petition with a prayer to treat the period of his absence from duty with effect from 22.03.2006 to 26.02.2008 as ‘compelled waiting leave’ and with a further prayer to grant him all consequential benefits including promotion, arrears of salary, from the date when his juniors were given promotion on the post of Lecturer.

2. Facts necessary for proper adjudication of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Agriculture) in Govt. Intermediate College, Bilkhet, Pauri Garhwal vide order dated 18.02.1994. Pursuant to the said appointment letter, petitioner joined his duties on 18.03.1994. Petitioner made an application for deputation to U.P. Land Reforms Corporation which was allowed by the respondents and he was sent on deputation to the said Corporation on 10.01.1995. Since the State of Uttarakhand was created on 09.11.2000, after being carved out from the State of Uttar Pradesh, petitioner was repatriated to his parent Department without his request for the same vide order dated 01.04.2002. Petitioner challenged the said order of unilateral repatriation passed by Corporation by filing WPSS No.2661 of 2002 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The Allahabad High Court vide order dated 14.05.2002, stayed the order of petitioner’s repatriation. Consequently, the petitioner remained on deputation with the respondent-Corporation.

3. On 02.02.2006, the stay order granted by the Allahabad High Court, on dated 14.05.2002, was vacated for the reason that no rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner, and accordingly, the petitioner was relieved by the Corporation vide order dated 21.03.2006. Petitioner, after being relieved from Corporation, straightway went to the Govt. Inter College, Bilkhet, Pauri Garhwal on 24.03.2006 for giving joining in his parent Department but the Principal of the said College refused to give him joining on the ground of non-availability of vacancy in the said subject. The petitioner on the very next day i.e. 25.03.2006, and subsequently on 06.04.2006 and 10.04.2006, wrote applications to the District Education Officer, Pauri Garhwal requesting him to give joining on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Agriculture) as he returned after repatriation from the Corporation where he had earlier joined on deputation. The respondent-District Education Officer did not pass any order on the same and accordingly the representations moved by the petitioner remained undecided.

4. It appears from the record that after being frustrated, petitioner came back to Lucknow and preferred Special Appeal No.275 of 2006 before the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court assailing the stay vacation order dated 02.02.2006. Vide order dated 26.04.2006, the special appeal filed by petitioner was disposed of by restoring the stay order, and as a result, petitioner was directed to remain posted with the Corporation on deputation.

5. Despite order dated 26.04.2006, the Corporation did not permit the petitioner to join his duties, and it (Corporation), chose to file Special Leave Petition (C) No.21344 of 2006. The said appeal was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 01.02.2008, whereby, the judgment passed in appeal by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and at the same time, the petitioner was permitted to join his parent cadre within four weeks thereafter. For ready reference, the order dated 01.02.2008 passed by Honb’le Supreme Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that as the respondent no.1 has no legal right to continue to remain on deputation with the appellant Corporation, the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.

Respondent no.1 sh