Dr. Saraf, J. — The petitioner, Bhupen Sengupta was appointed as Estimator on 3rd August, 1959 in the establishment of Settlement Officer, Tripura. Subsequently, he was promoted temporarily to the post of Sadar Amin with effect from 15th October, 1962. Since his appointment the petitioner was serving at the Headquarter of the Settlement Officer at Agartala. By an order dated 4. 4. 1964 issued by the Settlement Officer, Tripura, the petitioner was transferred and posted to Kamalpur. The petitioner applied medical leave for 90 days from 6. 4. 1964. On expiry of the said period he applied for extension of the leave. According to the petitioner no order was passed on his leave application. It is stated by the petitioner that due to ill behaviour of the Technical Advisor, he also submitted a conditional resignation in the year 1964, which too remained pending with the authorities without any order thereon whatsoever. According to the petitioner, his conditional resignation was not accepted by the respondents nor was he released from service. The petitioner, thereafter, moved the respondents from time to time praying for passing necessary orders in the matter and informing him accordingly, but nothing was done. 2. On 9. 11. 1978, the petitioner again submitted a petition claiming arrear pay and allowances, payment of balance amount of General Provident Fund account and pensionary benefits. This was followed by reminders. The petitioner was paid some amount of arrear dues in the month of February, 1984. However, the petitioner was refused pay from the date of expiry of his leave and the pensionary benefits. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition dated 11.3.1985 before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice narrating his plight and praying for grant of justice to him, which he failed to get from the respondents for the last 20 years. After perusing the same, by a judicial order, the said petition was treated as a Writ petition and notices were issued to the Director of Land Records and Settle­ment of Tripure and the State of Tripura. 3. On behalf of the State of Tripura and the Director of Land Records an affidavit was filed wherein the facts of appointment of the petitioner as Estimator, his promotion as Sadar Amin and his applying for leave were admitted. 3. On behalf of the State of Tripura and the Director of Land Records an affidavit was filed wherein the facts of appointment of the petitioner as Estimator, his promotion as Sadar Amin and his applying for leave were admitted. It was however stated in the said affidavit that as the application for leave submitted by the petitioner was not accompanied by a medical certificate in support of his illness, the petitioner was asked to apply afresh with necessary medical certificate, in the absence of which it was not possible to take any action towards the sanction of leave on medical ground. According to the counter of the respondents, no such application supported by medical certificate was filed by the petitioner nor he reported for duty. The case of the respondents, as stated in para 4 of the counter filed on 19. 8. 85, is that the petitioner on expiry of his leave as stated above remained absent from duty unauthorisedly without pay for more than 14 years without a representation or information whatsoever. His first representation, according to the respondents was received on 9. 11. 78 followed by reminders. Therefore, according to the respondents, as the petitioner rendered qualifying service for a period of 5 years 4 months 3 days only in a temporary capacity and ceased to be in Government employee in terms of Rule 14 (c) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1933 by over staying leave granted to him, he was not entitled to arrear pay. Further, according to the respondents, as the petitioner failed to complete the qualifying service of 10 years to make him eligible for pension he was not entitled to any pensionary benefit also according to the pension rules. 4. The respondents have denied the receipt of the conditional resignation letter and the letters asking the respondents to pass orders in the matter and also the fact of the petitioner having approached personally from time to time during the period from 1964 to 1978. 5. We have heard Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Majumder learned Go­vernment Advocate, for the respondents and perused the petition, the counter filed by the respondents and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 6.8.85. The facts regarding appointment, period of completed service and submission of leave application on medical grounds are not disputed by the respondents. D. K. Biswas, learned, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Majumder learned Go­vernment Advocate, for the respondents and perused the petition, the counter filed by the respondents and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 6.8.85. The facts regarding appointment, period of completed service and submission of leave application on medical grounds are not disputed by the respondents. According to the respondents; the application filed by the petitioner was not proper application as the same was not accompanied by any medical certificate and that the petitioner was asked by the concerned respondents to submit a fresh application accompanied by medical certificate which the petitioner did not do. The petitioner has denied the receipt of any such letter from the respondents. We asked Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents to produce the relevant records to satisfy the Court regarding the aforesaid conten­tion made by respondents. Mr. Majumder, however, expressed his inability to produce the leave application and the letter stated to have been issued by the respondents asking for fresh application on the ground that a part of the file containing these papers was lost in course of transfer of the office to another premises. He also denied the receipt of the conditional resignation letter. 6. The submission of Mr. Majumder, in short, can be summar­ised as follows : That the petitioner was a temporary employee of the Government and so also was the organisation to which the petitioner was employed temporary. The petitioner completed 5 years 4 months and 3 days of service only and thereafter ceased to be Government servant on account of over stayed of the period of leave. In support of this contention, Mr. Majumder has relied on Rule 14 (c) of the Revised Service Rules, 1933 and submitted that the petitioner was no more a Government employee. Accordingly, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any pay and also pensionary benefits as he failed to complete the minimum period of 10 years of service required for the purpose of pension under the pension rules. Mr. Majumder further submits that the petitioner having approached this Court after expiry of long 20 years and having not approached the Government also for long 14 years between 1964 to 1978, is not entitled to invoke the Writ jurisdiction of this Court and seek relief. Mr. Majumder further submits that the petitioner having approached this Court after expiry of long 20 years and having not approached the Government also for long 14 years between 1964 to 1978, is not entitled to invoke the Writ jurisdiction of this Court and seek relief. According to him the petition should be rejected on the ground of delay alone. 7. We have perused the various documents and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. We find that the fact of submission of application for leave on medical grounds is admitted by the respondents. The dispute is about the letter stated to have been issued by the respondents to the petitioner asking for submission of fresh application for leave. The petitioner has denied the receipt of the same on oath. Another dispute is regarding the submission of the petitioner that he approached the respondents from time to time in writing as well as by personal repres­entation to pass necessary orders in his case. The respondents have also denied the same. Mr. Biswas, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already made a prayer in his affidavit for production of records including files, correspondence etc. which would have proved the correctness of his submission. The respondents however have not produced the relevant records except tome papers on the ground that the part of the file containing the leave application etc. have been lost. Under such circumstances, we have no option but to rely on the statement of the petitioner in this regard that no action was taken by the respondents on his leave application and the representation made from time to time between 1964 to 1978. We now take up the legal submissions of the respondents that on account of his over staying the period of leave the petitioner ceased to be a Government employees in terms of Rule 14 (c) of the Revised Leave Rules, and, as such, he is neither entitled to any pay from that date onwards nor any pensionary benefits as the said period of completed service up to that date was only little over 5 years. We have perused Rule 14 (c) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1933 as at stood at the relevant time. It read : " 14. We have perused Rule 14 (c) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1933 as at stood at the relevant time. It read : " 14. (c) Where a Government servant who is not in permanent employ or quasi-permanent employ fails to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of extraordinary leave granted to him, or where such a Government servant who is granted a lesser amount of extraordinary leave then the ma­ximum amount admissible, remains absent from duty for any period which together with the extraordinary leave granted exc­eeds the limit up to which he could have been granted such leave under sub-rule (b). he shall, unless the President in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case otherwise determines; be deemed to have resigned his appointment and shall, accordi­ngly, cease to be in Government employ." It may be mentioned that the said sub-rule (c) of Rule 14 was substituted with effect from 31.3. 1971 vide G.I M.F. Notification No. F. 16 (4)-E. IV (A/71-1). In the instant case, we are not concerned with the substituted rule. On the basis of the aforesaid Rule 14 (c) the respondents have contended that the petitioner automatically ceased to be in Government employ on the expiry of his period of leave. We are unable to agree to such a conten­tion in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the4 case of J«i Shaker vs. State ( AIR 1966 SC 492 ). In that case also similar arguments were advanced on the basis of regulation 13 of the Jodhpur Service Regulations which reads as follows: "13. An individual who absents himself without permission or who remains absent without permission for one month or longer after the ends of Lis leave should be considered to have sacrificed his appointment and may only be reinstated with the sanction of the competent authority. Note: The submission of an application for extension of leave already granted docs not entitle an individual to absent himself without permission." It was contented before the Supreme Court that the said regula­tion operated automatically and no question of removal from service could arise because the employee must be considered to have sacrificed his appointment. Note: The submission of an application for extension of leave already granted docs not entitle an individual to absent himself without permission." It was contented before the Supreme Court that the said regula­tion operated automatically and no question of removal from service could arise because the employee must be considered to have sacrificed his appointment. Repelling the contention of the State in that case, it was held by the Supreme Court that a removal is a removal and if it is punishment for over staying one's leave, an opportunity must be given to the person against whom such an order is proposed no matter how the regulation described it. To give no opportunity would go against Article 311. A similar pro­vision came up for interpretation before this Court in Arun Pathak (Roy ) vs. State of Assam which is reported in ( 1987) 1 GLR 211 where in Rule 13 (3) of the Leave Rules, 1934 came up for interpretation. The said rule read : "14. (3). Where a Government servant who is not in permanent employ fails to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of extraordinary leave granted to him or where such a Government servant, who is granted a le>ser amount of extraordinary leave than the maximum amount admissible, remains absent from duty for any period which together with the extraordinary leave granted exceeds the limit upto which he could have been granted such leave under sub-rule (2) he shall, unless the Governor in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case otherwise determines be deemed to have resigned his appointment." As in the aforesaid case also no opportunity was given to the Government servant on the strength of Rule 14 (3) the order was held to be violative of Article 31! (2; of the Constitution and accordingly quashed- Confronted with the aforesaid decisions, Mr. Majumder, for the respondents submitted that the protection of Article 311(2) cannot be claimed by the petitioner who was a temporary employee. We are afraid, we cannot accept the aforesaid submission. It is too late in the day to submit that protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is available only to permanent Government employees and not to others. We, therefore, reject the aforesaid contention. 8. We are afraid, we cannot accept the aforesaid submission. It is too late in the day to submit that protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is available only to permanent Government employees and not to others. We, therefore, reject the aforesaid contention. 8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the admitted fact of the case that the petitioner applied for medical leave on which no order was passed by the State, and the decision of the Supreme Court and of our Court on this point referred to above, we hold that the petitioner did not cease to be in Government employ auto­matically by virtue of Rule 14 (c) of Revised Leave Rules. As it is also the admitted position in the instant case that no opportunity as contemplated by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was given to the petitioner, we hold that the petitioner continued to be in service till the date of his superannuation which we are told at the Bar was in 1978. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to agree with the submi­ssions of the learned Government Advocate for the respondents that the petitioner ceased to be an employee on and from the date of expiry of his leave automatically without any order of removal passed against the petitioner after giving him an opportunity to show cause. Such a decision is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The stand taken by the respondents refusing to give the salary to the petitioner till the date of his superannuation and pension the­reafter as per rules is therefore, not tenable in law. 10. We, accordingly, hold that the petitioner continued to be in service till the date of superannuation uninterruptedly and is entitled to all the back wages and pensionary benefits as per rules prescribed for the purpose. 11. As the petitioner is a poor person and was holding a Or. Ill post from which he was removed illegally almost 25 years back and he has been fighting against the mighty State with his limited means and resources for almost quarter of a century, we direct that the back salary and pensionary benefits due to the petitioner must be paid within three months from today. Ill post from which he was removed illegally almost 25 years back and he has been fighting against the mighty State with his limited means and resources for almost quarter of a century, we direct that the back salary and pensionary benefits due to the petitioner must be paid within three months from today. To enable the respondents to take immediate action in the matter, we direct that a copy of this judgment and order be given to the learned Advocate of the respondents. In the result, the petition is allowed. No order as to cost. Phukan, J. — I agree.