222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 20.01.2026 Kiranjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.

*****

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J. (Oral)

In the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure P-24) vide which the period from 01.10.2011 to 28.02.2017 i.e. the date of retirement of the petitioner has been held to be non-duty period and she has not been held entitled to any backwages although being reinstated in service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure P-26) vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure P-24)

has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially working on 89 days basis since the year 1994 on the post of S.S. Mistress in the respondent-Department. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 14.05.1997. While the petitioner was in service as S.S. Mistress in Government High School, Ranbir Pura (Patiala), she applied for Ex-India leave for the period from 01.07.2011 to 30.09.2011 to visit Canada to meet her son and to get her daughter admitted in the College/university. Petitioner was granted Ex-India leave for the abovesaid period vide order dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure P-1). While in Canada, during the aforesaid period of leave from 01.07.2011 to 30.09.2011, the petitioner developed serious physical complications and was advised complete rest for the period from 01.10.2011 to 30.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for extension of leave from abroad for the said period on the basis of medical certificate dated 22.09.2011. As per the petitioner, she did not recover from the illness and was diagnosed with "Endometrial Cancer Grade I" vide examination report dated 09.11.2011 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner was further advised complete rest for the period from 01.12.2011 to 31.01.2012, as such, she again applied for extension of leave for the period from 01.12.2011 to 31.01.2012 vide application dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner was operated on 20.01.2012 and was discharged from the hospital on 22.01.2012. It transpires that the petitioner was again advised rest for the period from 01.02.2012 to 30.04.2012. As a consequence of this, the petitioner again applied for extension of leave for the period from 01.02.2012 to 30.04.2012 vide application dated 19.01.2012 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner was further advised rest from 01.05.2012 to 30.06.2012. The petitioner again applied for extension of leave for the period from 01.05.2012 to 30.06.2012 vide application dated 23.04.2012 (Annexure P-8). However, as the petitioner could not recover completely, she was again advised rest for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.09.2012. It transpires that the petitioner underwent medical check-up and was again advised rest for the period from 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2012 for treatment of Uterus Cancer and applied for extension of leave for the period from 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2012 vide application dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure P-10). As per the petitioner, during treatment of Cancer, she also suffered from Carpel Tunnel Syndromes, as such, she was again advised complete rest for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2013. The petitioner again applied for extension of leave for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.0.2013 vide application dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure P-12). The petitioner was again advised complete rest for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.05.2013. She again applied for extension of leave for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.05.2013 vide application dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure P-14). A perusal of facts of the case would show that request made by the petitioner for extension of leave was ne