JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The writ petitioner who was working as a French Interpreter in Nationa Aluminium Company Limited from February, 1980 till December, 1989 oh contract basis, challenges the action of the opp parties in not granting him renewal/extension of service, even though, persons similarly placed and even his juniors have been allowed to continue. The further grievance of the petitioner Is that his representation for permanent absorption in service has illegally not been considered to keep him out of service for no reason whatsoever. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a French Interpreter by National Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter called as 'Company'.) on contract basis initially for a period of one year in a consolidated salary of Rs. 1400/- per month being duly selected for the post and pursuant to the letter of appointment issued on 25-1-19 5, he joined the Company on 11-2-1985. The appointment was further extended for another year with a rise in consolidated salary from Rs. 1400/- to Rs. 1500/- per month on the terms and conditions laid under Annexure-2. the order of appointment dated 11-2-1985. However, the petitioner alongwith other French Interpreters continued to work beyond one year even after his term of appointment expired on 11-2-1987 and the formal letter of appointment/extension of his-service was made on 21-2-.1987 vide. Anuexure-3, wherein the consolidated salary was again enhanced to Rs. 1600/- per month. Additional service. benefits like Medical facility, leave, residential accommodation. T. A. and D. A. etc were extended to the petitioner by the Company and the consolidated salary was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 1800/.- per month. The services of the petitioner was further extended by another year by order dated 1 6-2-1988 inAnnexnre.5. The petitioner continued in service by different orders of short extension/renewals from time to time beyond 11-2-1980 and ultimately by order dated 31-10-1889. his services were extended till 31-12-1989 vide Anrrexwe-8. The Assistant Personnel Manager of opp. party No: 1, Company by telegram dated 8-1-1990 followed by letter of confirmation in Annexure- 9 intimated the petitioner that the contract period of employment has expired from 1-1-1990 and he may collect his dues. 3. It is the petitioner's case that alongwlth him one Sri. his services were extended till 31-12-1989 vide Anrrexwe-8. The Assistant Personnel Manager of opp. party No: 1, Company by telegram dated 8-1-1990 followed by letter of confirmation in Annexure- 9 intimated the petitioner that the contract period of employment has expired from 1-1-1990 and he may collect his dues. 3. It is the petitioner's case that alongwlth him one Sri. T N. Das Adhikari was also selected and had Joined the post on the same day on 11-2-1985 and after him Sri M. K. Rath. Mr. S. Patel and M. R. Misra were appointed to the post of French Interpreter and evert if said Sri Adhikari and juniors have been granted extension of service and continuing as such by order of extension dated 1-1-1990 In Annexure-10, petitioner's in terms of appointment has not been renewed or extended illegally and arbitrarily for no reasons whatsoever even though he has a brilliant service career without any blemish. He has also been deputed to different departments for work. There has also been no adverse remarks against him nor he has been communicated with any such adverse remarks and as such there is absolutely no reasons as to why, the period of contract in favour of the petitioner should not have been extended while his juniors are retained in service. The petitjoner further alleges that the alongwith other French Interpreters, who were continuing in service for long years since 1985 made a representation to the opposite parties to consider their cases for regularisation but unfortunately as vet the management has not considered the matter for regularisation or permanent absorption, 4. The opposite parties have filed a comprehensive counter-affidavit through the Assistant Personnel Manager, disputing the claim of the petitioner on several grounds while admitting the factum of appointment, continuance till 1-1-1990 and extension/renewal of contract of service in respect of persons so appointed alongwith him even his juniors. It is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner's appointment being as contract for one year, on terms and conditions as laid in the order of appointment, he ceases to be in employment since or the exoiry of period of contract i. e. from 1-1-1990, petitioner having not been communicated with the order to continue in service for further period. The opp. parties have alteged that the petitioner having absconded from duty with effect from 21-12-1989. The opp. parties have alteged that the petitioner having absconded from duty with effect from 21-12-1989. till the expiry of the period of contract, his case could not be considered for further extension. ft is further stated that in terms of the order of appointment, the petitioner is governed under the NALCO service conditions, which stipulates that if an employee rermins absent thorisedly for 10 days or more, it Is deemed that he has abandoned the service and loses lien and his name is struck-off from the Rules of the opp. party. A copy of the said Rules/Standing Order has been fried as Annexure-A. The petitioner's name was struck off from the Rolls of opp. party, Inasmuch as the appointment order being clear to the extent that he was appointed for a fixed pericd, after expiry of the said -period he does not have any claim over the post nor there is application of principle of last come first go, in terms of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is claimed that in view of the provisions of law after expiry of the period of appointment if an employee is not given any extension or renewal of service then it will not amount to retrenchment nor the principle of first come last go will be applicable. 5. So far as the allegation of the petitioner regarding non-consideration of his representation for regularisation/permanent absorption, it is stated that on the basis of the representation, the qualification etc. of the candidates were verified to find out the suitability for the post of Assistant in NALCO. On verification of documents, it was found that even though declaration was given by the petitioner that he has passed the three years higher course from Sri Aurobindo inter national Centre of Education, which is equivalent to Graduation, he had not submitted any certificate in support of his qualification, as such, he was requested to supply the said document. Correspondences went on, the petitioner took time but ultimately the petitioner sent a letter on 27-11-1989 stating that whatever document he has submitted in connection with his educational qualification at the time of joining may be treated as final. Along with the letter, he submitted xerox copies of some documents which were earlier submitted at the time of joining. Correspondences went on, the petitioner took time but ultimately the petitioner sent a letter on 27-11-1989 stating that whatever document he has submitted in connection with his educational qualification at the time of joining may be treated as final. Along with the letter, he submitted xerox copies of some documents which were earlier submitted at the time of joining. The xerox copy of the document so filed has been annexed as Annexure.K. On scrutiny, it was found by the opposite parties that the testimonials submitted vide reference No. ICE/RP/3302/8O dated 19th November, 1980 signed by Miss. Paru Patil, Registrar, Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education Pohdichery has been tamperred with to show that he has completed three-year higher course" "from December. 1977 to October, 1980. whereas "to 31st October, 1980" was not in the photo copy of the said documents submitted at the time of joining and therefore it was taken that he has not passed Graduation and tried to tamper with the documents, 6. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the allegations made In the counter affidavit with regard to absconding unauthorisedly from duty, striking off his name from the rolls of opp party and the allegation of fraud and tampering with the certificate against the petitioner. It is, inter alia, stated in the said rejoinder that while he was working as a Control Room Operator, he applied for leave in prescribed form and only after it was recommended by Sri B. K. Das, Administrative Officer, he left headquarters for Cuttack to see off his sister, who was going to America, but ha having fallen ill on 27-12-1989 and treated at City Hospital, Cuttack from 28-12-1989 for Acute Hxerabation of Acid Peptic with . Registration No. 5782, he sent a telegram on 28-12-1989 to the Administrative Officer that "Unable to join due sickness, pray extend leave''. The contents of the telegram was confirmed by letter dated 30-12-1989 and the petitioner has annexed a postal receipt of the telegram and confirmation letter as Annexures-13 and 14. It is in essence stated that the plea of opp, parties that he was absconding from duty is false and he being on leave, he ought to have been considered for extension alongwith others including his juniors, but with a mala fide intention he has been excluded. It is in essence stated that the plea of opp, parties that he was absconding from duty is false and he being on leave, he ought to have been considered for extension alongwith others including his juniors, but with a mala fide intention he has been excluded. The petitioner has admitted that he is governed under the NALCO Service Conditions but the allegation of unauthorised absence for 10 days in view of his application for leave and telegram for extension, confirmed by letter under Annexures 13 and 14 is unwarr-. anted. It is the averment that he having applied for leave and extension as evidenced from the records, question of unauthorised absence does not arise. The petitioner has stated that he has done his Graduation, having completed three-year higher course from Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education, Pondichery, which is equivalent to Graduation and submitted certificate awarded by the Institution under ICE/RP/3302/80 dated 19-11-1980 which clearly indicates that the petitioner was admitted to three year higher course and attended the course for three years. The Company having questioned the genuineness of the certificate, he had produced at the time of joining fie had approached the Institute for clarifying the position and ultimately the petitioner correctly intimated the Company that whatever document's he had: submitted in connection with the education qualification at the time of joining may be treated as final. Petitioner has strongly denied the allegations with regar to tampering of this certificate dared 19-11-1980. It is stated that the original itself was submitted to the Company and the same was returned! to petitioner after taking xerox copy of it. However, the petitioner has stated that he,made a reference to the institution and the institution" vide letter No, ICE/CERTI9041.91 dated 2-10-1991 pointed out that the certificate issued on 19-11-1980 has not been tampered with the inasmuch as the certificate bear the date 3tst October 1998.' in its second paragraph. A photo copy of the certificate was also sent alongwifh the Tetter of clarication which has been annexed as. Annexures 18 and19. A photo copy of the certificate was also sent alongwifh the Tetter of clarication which has been annexed as. Annexures 18 and19. The petitioner claims that the principle of natural justice has not been followed, no enquiry having been conducted in respect of the allegations of misconduct made against him for alleged absconding and remaining absent unauthorisedly and for tarripering with the certificate produced at the time of joining and as such no penal action couid have been taken by the opp. parties by striking off his name from the rolls of the Company and consequently denying him extension of service and rejecting his representation on the misconceived plea that the certificate regarding educational qualification submitted by him was tampered with, ' . 7. Having heard Sri J, Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ganeswar Rath for the opposite parties, the first question that arises for consideration is as to whether the action of the opposite party Company in striking off the name to the petitioner from its rolls because of the alleged unauthorised absence in term9 of Rule 31 of the Standing Order, is sustainable in law. Rule 31 of the Standing Order in Annexure-A reads thus ; "31. TERMINATION OF . EMPLOYMENT" (i) Service of Permanent/Temporary workman may be terminated by eitherparty giving to the other a notice in writing or paying equivalent basic wage/ salary in lieu of notice as per the terms of his appointment. (ii) If a workman remains absent unauthorisedly for more than 10 days and/ or absents himself beyond a period of leave originajly granted or subsequently extended, he shall be deemed to have lost his lien on 'his appointment unless he -- (a) returns within 10 days of the date of his losing the lien and/ or (b) explains to the satisfaction of the management the reasons for unauthorised absence as early as possible, but in any case not later than expiry of 15 days from the date of the issue of the registered letter by the Management at his last known address. The petitioner has specifically asserted that he was being appointed in spells of one year each with effect from ;February. 1985 till February, 1989 and thereafter the .appointment was being renewed for a period of less than one year the last being October 1989 till end of December, 1989. Before expirv of the. The petitioner has specifically asserted that he was being appointed in spells of one year each with effect from ;February. 1985 till February, 1989 and thereafter the .appointment was being renewed for a period of less than one year the last being October 1989 till end of December, 1989. Before expirv of the. term, the petitioner made an application for leave on 21-12-1989 and the .leave application having been duly ... recommended and forwarded by the Administrative Officer under whom he was working, he left the ;need quarters for Cuttack. The petitioner having fallen seriously ill was being treated in City Hospital from 28-12-1989 for acute Excerabation of Acid Peptic and was registered as a patient, bearing No. .5782 and advised rest till recovery. Petitioner sents Telegram on 28-12-1989 and a letter in confirmation of the telegram on the said date and the copies of the postal receipts thereof have been annexed as Ahnexures 13 and 14 respectively. it is the case of the petitioner that when he recovered from the illness and came to from on 13th of January, 1990, he was not allowed to join and continue in service. This statement of the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavits and the corroborating documents led in support of the telegram and the Tetter has hot been . controverted by the opposite parties by filing any affidavit: Thus, the" petitioner having proceeded oh leave and prayed for extension of leave and no communication of rejection of such leave application having been sent by the opposite parties, no exception can be taken to the petitioner's absence. In any event his absence could not be termed as unauthorised to attract the provision of Rule 31 of the Standing Order as contended by the opposite parties. 8. In any event his absence could not be termed as unauthorised to attract the provision of Rule 31 of the Standing Order as contended by the opposite parties. 8. It may be further emphasised that under Clause 31 of the Standing Order, the services of an employee may be terminated, if the remains absent unauthorsed for more than 10 days or absents himself beyond a period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, 'in which event he may be deemed to have lost his lien on his appointment unless he returns within 10 days of the date or his losing the lien and/or explains to the satisfaction of the Managemant the reasons for unauthorised absence as early as possible, but in any case not later the expiry of 15 days from the date of the issue of the registered letter by the Management. In the present - case, the Management admittedly sent the letter dated 9-1-1990, which reached the petitioner on 13-1-1990. but according to the petitioner he had already left Cuttack to resume his duties. It has been specifically stated by the opposite parties that the petitioner having unauthorisedly absconded from duty with effect from 21-12-1989, in terms of Rule 31, his name was struck of from the rolls. Rule 31 authorised the Management to strike off the rolls of an employee if he is unauthorisedly absent for more than 10 days, which is again subject to the condition that unless the workman returns within 10 days from the date of his losing the lien or explains to the satisfaction of the Management the reason for unauthorised absence. In the case at hand, the petitioner's absence cannot be validly termed unauthorised inasmuch as he came to join his post on 13-1-1990, which has been refused by the Management. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the action of the Management in striking off the name of the petitioner from the rolls in terms of Rule 31 of the Standing Order was unauthorised in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence not sustainable in law. 9. The next question that needs consideration is as to whether the opposite parties have acted legally and fairly in not considering the case of the petitioner for extension/renewal of contract of service. 9. The next question that needs consideration is as to whether the opposite parties have acted legally and fairly in not considering the case of the petitioner for extension/renewal of contract of service. The opposite parties have clearly admitted in their counter that persons appointed along with the petitioner and same of his juniors have been given renewal/extension of appointment with effect from 1-1-1990, but the petitioner s term of appointment has not been extended since he was not available on the date of expiry of the term of his employment and his name was struck off from the due to his unauthorised-absence. We have already held that striking off the name of the petitioner on the plea that he was unauthorisedly absent was illegal and unauthorised and in that view of the matter, the striking off the name of the petitioner being illegal and unauthorised, non-consideration of the petitioner's case for extension/renewal of his employment since after 1-1-1930 cannot be justified. 10. The opposite parties have taken a further, stand in their counter-affidavit reiterated by the learned counsel durirg his argument, that in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed for a term expiring on 31-12-1989 the services of the petitioners came to an end from the said date and as such the non-renewal of his appointment, even if his juniors have been given the renewals cannot be considered as illegal in view of the protection u/s 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This submission of the learned counsel has no force and contradictory to the earlier stand taken. It has already been pleaded specifically that petitioner's name having been struck off from the rolls for his unauthorised absence prior to the expiry of the term of employment, his case was not considered for extension of his services even though other such French Interpreters appointed along with him and even his juniors were granted extension. The opposite parties cannot be allowed to breathe hot and cold at the same time. The name of the petitioner having been struck off prior to the expiry of the term under alleged grourd of unauthorised absence it is not open to the employer to contend that non-renewal of contract on expirty of the term of employment is protected under the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 11. Sri Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner further . 11. Sri Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner further . submits that the petitioner alongwith other French Interpreters had filed a representation to the Company for permanent absorption in the post of Assistant, which has been rejected by the opposite parties on extraneous consideration and on the false plea that he had not furnished the proof of having graduation qualification rather alleging, the certificate produced to have been manipulated. It is the case of the opposite parties that the petitioner was considered for appointment as an Assistant but he was not considered for the said post in view of the fact that on verification of the documents furnished by the petitioner it was found that at the time of joining as French Interpreter he has declared to have passed "the three years' course" from Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education. Pondichery, which is equivalent to graduation but he had not submitted any certificate in support of the above qualification. In reply to the letter, the petitioner vide his reply dated 17-11-1989 annexed as Annexure-J to the counter-affidavit intimated that whatever document he has submitted in connection with his qualification at the time of joining may be treated as final. Along with the said letter, he also submitted xerox copies of some documents which were earlier submitted at the time of joining. The Xerox copy of the documents so furnished regarding his educational qualification has been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-K. On scrutiny of the said document it was found that one testimonial submitted by him vide reference "No. ICE/RP/5302/80 dated November, 1980 issued by (Miss.) Paru Patil, Registrar of the centre. has been tampered with to show that he has completed three years' higher course "from December, 1977 to 31st October. 1930," whereas the photo copy of the same submitted at the time of joining does not indicate October 1980'. It is, therefore, the contention of the opposite parties that he has not passed graduation and tried- to 'tamper the document submitted earlier with ulterior motives. On a perusal of Annexure-K, it is seen that the petitioner had furnished a Certificate, he having studied twelve years' higher secondary course was adnitted to three years higher course which he attended from December 1977 to.31st October] 1980. The opposite parties have taken the plea that in the original certificate produced'by the . On a perusal of Annexure-K, it is seen that the petitioner had furnished a Certificate, he having studied twelve years' higher secondary course was adnitted to three years higher course which he attended from December 1977 to.31st October] 1980. The opposite parties have taken the plea that in the original certificate produced'by the . petitioner at the time of initial appointment, the portion to 31st October, 1980" does not' appear," but the certificate said to have been filed by the petitioner have not been produced in the Court to show that this portion was not mentioned in the said certificate. The petitioner has filed a letter dated 13-9-1991 addressed to the Registrar of the Centre requesting to confirm that the certificate issued on 19-11-198O bears the date' r "to 31st October 1980" and pursuant to the said letter of the petitioner' the Registrar of the centre vide her letter dated 2nd October, 1991 which has been annexed as Annexure-19 to the rejoinder affidavit, has clearly certified that the above-mentioned certificate does beer the date 31st October, 1980 in its second paragraph. He has also furnished the photo copy of the certificate originally granted to the petitioner which has been annexed as Annexure-19. In the aforesaid background of the matter, it can never be construed that the petitioner had not undergone the course in the centre from December 1977 to 31st October,1980 and that the certificate furnished by the petitioner has been manipulated to that extent. Admittedly, the three years' higher course of the centre is equivalent to graduation, and the equivalence has been reflected in the letter of the Chief Personnel Manager dated 12th December,1988 addressed to the petitioner and annexed to the " counter-affidavit as Annexure-H. In that view of the matter, the plea of the opposite parties that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for permanent absorption in the post of Assistant because of non-submination of the materials to prove his educational qualification cannot be sustained. The documents on record amply show that the petitioner lias undertaken the three years higher course from December 1977 to October, 1980 from Sri Aurobindo International Centre -of Education, Pondichery, which has been treated to be aquivalent to graduation by the opposite parties. The documents on record amply show that the petitioner lias undertaken the three years higher course from December 1977 to October, 1980 from Sri Aurobindo International Centre -of Education, Pondichery, which has been treated to be aquivalent to graduation by the opposite parties. The petitioner in his additional affidavit filed on 24-6-1994 has asserted that the services of all other French Interpreters including his juniors have been regularised in the post of Assis-tants in the Company after 10-4-1950, but even though he was the senjormost, he has been discriminated. This assertion has also not been controverted by the opposite parties by filing any affidavit in opposition. 12. In view of the observations and the findings made above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner having been (illegally denind extension/renewal of employment as a French Interpreter since after 1-1-1990 and Further the petitioner's services having not been regularised by absorbing him in the permanert post of Assistant in the Company, on an erroneous assumption that he acks required educational qualification, which has already been held to be illegal and misconceived, which has the petitioner is entitled to be considered for permanent absorption in the Company in the post of Assistant from the date the other French Interpreters were regularised and given permanent appointment in the Company. 13. In the result, we direct the opposite parties, to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and appointment in the post of an Assistant of the Company, with effect from the date the other French Interpreters were so regularised, on the proviso that the petitioner has the requisite educational qualification and without insisting on age bar. However, we have and trust that the only ground on which he was denied consideration being lack of requisite qualification, there would be no further impediment in the way of regularisation in service, the petitioner having been held to have the requisite qualification. However, on regularisation and permanent absorption in service, the period from such date till actual joining, shall only be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits but he shall not be entitled to salary for those period he has not rendered any service to the Company inasmuch as there is no tangible materials on record that he was not gainfully employed during that period. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. S. Chatterji, A.C.J. I agree.