ORDER 1. The applicant has presented this petition with a prayer that the non-applicant no. 9 be directed to comply the order dated 29-1-98 passed by non-applicant no. 6. The applicant has also prayed that the non-applicants be directed to accept the separate applications filed by the applicant regarding leave and the applicant be paid her salary. It has also been prayed that the applicant be allowed to all consequential benefits from the day she taken over the charge of her post. 2. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant was appointed as Asstt. Professor on 28-11-89 and was posted at Govt. D.K. College, Baloda Bazar. She joined her duties on 1-7-94 vide Annexure A-I. The applicant filed leave application on 2-7 -94,4-7 -94, 7-7-94 to 9-7-94. All the applications of the applicant were rejected by the non-applicants and the applicant was directed to join her duties. The applicant presented one application before non-applicant no. 9 and intimated that she was pregnant hence she was directed by the Doctor to take rest. The applicant has also filed medical certificate. 3. The applicant has stated that she filed application Annexure A-10 for maternity leave. As per applicant, during the period of her leave, she was appointed temporarily on supernumerary post vide order Annexure A-2. The applicant appeared on 27-4-95 and she wanted to take over charge. She also filed one application to take over charge of her new post. She also filed one application Annexure A-13 for pay of 10 days. The application of the applicant was sent to her superior authorities. The applicant has stated that she fulfilled all the requirements regarding her leave application and has filed necessary documents i.e. medical certificate and birth certificate of the newly born. 4. Further contention of the applicant is that when the applicant appeared before non-applicant no. 9 to join her duties, she was not allowed to join her duties and she was also not paid the salary, so the applicant filed Annexure A-18. The non-applicant no. 9 sought explanation from the applicant and the applicant presented application Annexure A-20. The applicant again requested on 13-3-97 that she be allowed to take over charge vide Annexure A-21 but she was not allowed and Annexure A-22 was served on the applicant. 5. The applicant has also stated that the non-applicant no. The non-applicant no. 9 sought explanation from the applicant and the applicant presented application Annexure A-20. The applicant again requested on 13-3-97 that she be allowed to take over charge vide Annexure A-21 but she was not allowed and Annexure A-22 was served on the applicant. 5. The applicant has also stated that the non-applicant no. 6 vide order dated 29-1-98 (Annexure A-24), directed the non-applicant no. 9 to allow the applicant to take over charge and it was also directed that all the necessary information regarding leave of the applicant be sent to non-applicant no.6. The applicant has stated that in pursuance of order of non-applicant no. 6, she joined her duties on 2-2-98 vide Annexure A-25 but the non-applicant no. 9 has not permitted the applicant to join her duties, so the applicant sent the complaint to the superior authorities even then, the applicant was not permitted by non-applicant no. 9 to join her duties. 6. Further contention of the applicant is that the non-applicant no. 5 vide order Annexure A-27 directed that since the applicant has joined her duties on 2-2-98, she be paid her salary from the date of taking over charge. 7. The applicant has stated that though she has been appointed vide order Annexure A-2 temporarily on supernumerary post and that order of appointment has neither been stayed nor has been quashed, so the applicant is entitled to join the post of Asstt. Professor in view of supernumerary appointment. As per applicant, the non-applicant No.6 has cancelled his own order dated 29-1-98 by order dated 22-4-98 without hearing the applicant and as per applicant, the impugned order of non-applicant no. 6 is against the rules. 8. Further contention of the applicant is that the applicant was informed by non-applicant no. 9 that as per direction of the non-applicant no. 1, no order will be passed regarding payment of the salary of the applicant. 9. Last contention of the applicant is that the applicant is deprived of the reliefs for which she is entitled without any just cause hence the applicant has presented this petition. 10. The non-applicants have filed their return. The contention of the non-applicants is that the applicant was appointed on emergency basis and the applicant was not entitled for any leave except the leave of 13 days as casual leave. 10. The non-applicants have filed their return. The contention of the non-applicants is that the applicant was appointed on emergency basis and the applicant was not entitled for any leave except the leave of 13 days as casual leave. It was a condition of the service of the applicant that in the first opportunity, the applicant has to be selected by M.P. P.S.C. otherwise her services will stand terminated without any notice. Since the applicant was not successful in the year 1991 and the applicant's name was not in the list declared by P.S.C., the services of the applicant came to an end suo-moto. 11. Further contention of the non-applicants is that due to sympathy, the Govt. of M.P. appointed the applicant as Asstt. Professor under supernumerary basis. In this post also, the applicant was not entitled for any leave except casual leave. 12. The non-applicants have stated that the applicant was absent from 2-7-94 to 27-4-95 and she never complied the order Annexure A-2 dated 27-10-94, so she came within the purview of out of service from July, 94. 13. As per non-applicants, as per oral order of Addl. Director of Higher Education, Raipur, the applicant was permitted to join her duties on 27-4-95 with a condition that her case will be considered by Addl. Director which will be binding on the applicant and this condition was accepted by the applicant. 14. The non-applicants have stated that after 28-4-95, the applicant was again absent from her duties, so in pursuance of Annexure R -1 and Annexures A-I and A-2, the services of the applicant come to an end on 28-5-95. 15. Further contention of the non-applicants is that during the period of her absence, the applicant sent three applications which were rejected and the applicant was informed accordingly but the applicant failed to join her duties. The applicant sent so many in formations to the Principal of the college which were brought into the notice of the Govt. vide Annexures R-6 and R-7. The Govt. passed an order1hat the applicant should not be permitted to take over her charge. 16. Further contention of the non-applicants is that neither the applicant filed any application for maternity leave nor there was any provisions for maternity leave hence the application of the applicant is liable to be rejected and hence they were rejected also. The Govt. passed an order1hat the applicant should not be permitted to take over her charge. 16. Further contention of the non-applicants is that neither the applicant filed any application for maternity leave nor there was any provisions for maternity leave hence the application of the applicant is liable to be rejected and hence they were rejected also. As per non-applicants, the applicant is residing with her husband at Jodhpur and she has applied for one post at Jodhpur vide Annexure R-11. As per non-applicants, the service of the applicant has come to an end on 2-7-94, so there is no cause of action in favour of the applicant and the applicant is not entitled for any relief. The applicant was successful in getting order Annexure A-24 in her favour against the order Annexure A-7. She came to join her post vide order Annexure A24 but in view of Annexure R -7, her joining was not accepted and after knowledge of all the facts, the Commissioner has quashed order dated 291-98 vide order Annexure R-9. 17. The non-applicants have also stated that the petition of the applicant is time barred hence it is liable to be rejected. The non-applicants have also stated that the applicant's appointment was on emergency basis, so she was not entitled for the increment of pay and since she has never joined her duties in supernumerary appointment, she is not entitled for any increment. The non-applicants have prayed that the petition of the applicant be dismissed. 18. The applicant has filed her rejoinder. As per applicant, she was entitled for maternity leave in' view of Annexure A-44 and Annexure R-8. The applicant has stated that in view of Annexure A-I, it cannot be said that since the applicant was not selected by P.S.C. at the first instance, her service came to an end automatically. Though the Government was entitled to pass a suitable order regarding termination of the service of the applicant and since no order has been passed by the Government, the service of the applicant has not come to an end. Further contention of the applicant is that when she received order dated 27-10-94, she was on maternity leave and she appeared before the principal of D.K. College, Baloda Bazar on 27-4-95, she was not permitted to join her duties. Further contention of the applicant is that when she received order dated 27-10-94, she was on maternity leave and she appeared before the principal of D.K. College, Baloda Bazar on 27-4-95, she was not permitted to join her duties. The applicant has repeatedly stated that her services have not been terminated and she was not allowed to join her duties hence she was absent. The applicant has also stated that the Principal of the College had sent Annexure R-6 with incorrect information hence Annexure R-7 was passed. The applicant has also stated that she sent one application for maternity leave and prayed for leave during the period 16-1-95 to 15-4-95. The applicant has denied the fact that she applied for post in Rajasthan. The applicant has repeatedly stated that since her services have not been terminated by a specific order, she is entitled for the relief. 19. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the documents filed by both the parties along with the affidavits filed by both the parties. 20. The point for consideration before this Tribunal is; "Whether the non-applicant no. 9 can be directed to comply the order dated 29-1-98 passed by non-applicant no. 6 ?" 21. It is undisputed that order Annexure A-24 is an order dated 29-1-98. From the perusal of order Annexure A-24, it is clear that the Government has passed the following order for the applicant: HINDI TYPE The above order was passed by the Government in view of the letter no. 102/95-96 dated 10-5-95. Order Annexure A-24 has not been complied by the non-applicants is also a fact undisputed. 22. The non-applicants have filed their return and they have stated that the applicant was not entitled for order Annexure A-24 which was obtained against the order of Madhya Pradesh Government dated 16-5-95 (Annexure R-7) by the applicant from subordinate officer Shri Manish Shrivastava, Addl. Director, Higher Education. The non-applicants have admitted that the applicant appeared to comply the order Annexure A-24 on 2-2-98.but she was not allowed to join her duties in view of order Annexure R-7. The non-applicants have also stated that the information was sent vide order Annexure R-8 dated 6-2-98 and order Annexure R-9 was passed. 23. Director, Higher Education. The non-applicants have admitted that the applicant appeared to comply the order Annexure A-24 on 2-2-98.but she was not allowed to join her duties in view of order Annexure R-7. The non-applicants have also stated that the information was sent vide order Annexure R-8 dated 6-2-98 and order Annexure R-9 was passed. 23. From the perusal of order Annexure R-7, it is clear that the Principal of Baloda Bazar was directed not to allow the applicant to join her duties after she returned from her absence; order Annexure R-7 is dated 16-5-95 but order Annexure A-24 is dated 29~ 1-98. It is pertinent to note that order Annexure A-24 has already been cancelled vide Annexure R-9 dated 22-4-98 hence I am of the opinion that since the order Annexure A-24 has already been cancelled vide Annexure R-9, the non-applicants cannot be directed to comply the order dated 29-1-98 which has already been cancelled vide order Annexure R-9. 24. Now, next point for consideration is whether the non-applicants can be directed to accept the applications filed for leave by the applicant? 25. It is undisputed fact that the applicant joined her service on 1-7-94 vide Annexure A-I and she filed leave applications on 2-7-94, 4-7-94 and 7-7-94 to 9-7-94 but those applications were rejected by order dated 23-7-94 (Annexure A-7). 26. If the applicant was aggrieved by order Annexure A-7, it was her duty to file a petition within one year after passing the order Annexure A-7 but the applicant has presented this petition in June, 98, so the claim of the applicant regarding above leave is badly time barred; the applicant is not entitled for any relief regarding her application for casual leave. 27. The applicant has also stated that the applicant again filed applications for leave for the period 11-7-94 to 10-10-94 on health ground and for maternity leave for the period 11-7-94 to 26-4-95. In reply to the above contention of the applicant, the non-applicants have stated that since the applicant was appointed on suprnumerary post, she was not entitled for above leave. 28. Regarding maternity leave, I am of the opinion that the above contention of the non-applicants cannot be accepted in view of Rule 38 of M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977. In reply to the above contention of the applicant, the non-applicants have stated that since the applicant was appointed on suprnumerary post, she was not entitled for above leave. 28. Regarding maternity leave, I am of the opinion that the above contention of the non-applicants cannot be accepted in view of Rule 38 of M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977. Under Rule 38 of the above Rules, no period of completion has been prescribed for maternity leave, so I am of the opinion that the applicant was entitled for maternity leave as per Rule 38 of above leave Rules for a period of 90 days. 29. The applicant has prayed that she was not granted extra-ordinary leave for the period 11-7-94 to 26-4-95. I feel that above contention of the applicant is mis-conceived. The applicant has combined two types of leave together; (1) Extra-ordinary leave, (2) Maternity leave because nine months maternity leave cannot be granted to any 9J1ployee under, any Rule of M.P. Leave Rules. From the perusal of Annexure A-7, it is established that the applicant applied for extra-ordinary leave from 11-7-94 to 10-10-94. This leave application was rejected by the non-applicants on 23-7-94 vide Annexure A-7, so it was the duty of the applicant to file a petition against the order Annexure A-7 within a period of one year but the applicant has filed this petition in June, 98, so the above claim of the applicant is badly time barred. 30. The applicant has prayed that the non-applicants be directed to accept the presence of applicant as per her appointment on supernumerary post. It is undisputed that the applicant was not permitted to join her post on supernumerary appointment. 31. It is most important and pertinent to note that previously the applicant was appointed as Asstt. Professor, Paychology on emergency basis. The non-applicants have stated that it was a condition in Annexure A-I that the applicant had to be selected by P.S.C. in the first instance otherwise, the services of the applicant would be terminated without any notice. 32. From the perusal of Annexure A-I, it is clear that the following order was passed for the applicant: HINDI TYPE So, from the above condition, it is established that if the applicant failed to be selected by the P.S.C. at the first instance, the services of the applicant was not to be terminated suo-moto. 32. From the perusal of Annexure A-I, it is clear that the following order was passed for the applicant: HINDI TYPE So, from the above condition, it is established that if the applicant failed to be selected by the P.S.C. at the first instance, the services of the applicant was not to be terminated suo-moto. The real meaning of the above order is that if the applicant was not successful to be selected by the P.S.C. at the first instance, the Government was entitled and fully empowered to terminant the services of the applicant without prior intimation and without an) prior notice to the applicant and in this condition also it was necessary to pass an order regarding termination of the services of the applicant by the Government/non-applicants but it is pertinent to note that no order of termination of the applicant from the post of Asstt. Professor was ever passed by the Government and since no termination order was passed by the Government/non-applicants i.e. the competent authority, it cannot be presumed that the services of the applicant have been terminated suo-moto. (Please see Govind Pal Single Jadon Vs. State of M.P. & Others; 1994 MPLSR 17; Subhash Chand Khatri Vs. State of M.P.; 1998 MPLSR 399, Laxmi Vinod Samdariya Through L.R.S. Vs. State of M.P. & Others; 1998 MPLSR 518). 33. From the above discussion and findings, it is clear that the applicant though was absent for a pretty long time, it still in service, so' she is entitled to join her post as Asstt. Professor. 34. The applicant is also entitled for her pay of 90 days as a pay of maternity leave. 35. The applicant has not performed her duties and she was absent from her duty without leave being sanctioned, so she is not entitled for her pay for the period of her absence from duties on 'No Work, No Pay' basis and the period of the applicant after 2-7 -94 will be treated as dies-non. 36. It is hereby order that the non-applicants should allow the applicant to join her services as Asstt. Professor. A suitable order regarding her posting be passed within two months of the receipt of this order and she be paid the salary for a period of three months as maternity leave. Parties to bear their own costs. 36. It is hereby order that the non-applicants should allow the applicant to join her services as Asstt. Professor. A suitable order regarding her posting be passed within two months of the receipt of this order and she be paid the salary for a period of three months as maternity leave. Parties to bear their own costs. Hon. Shri D.P.S. Chauhan, Ag.C.J. & Hon. Shri A.K. Mishra, J. Heard the learned State Counsel. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4-11-99 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Raipur Bench in O.A. No. 470/98, whereby the following order was passed: "31. It is most important and pertinent to note that previously the applicant was appointed as Asstt. Professor, Psychology on emergency basis. The non-applicants have stated that it was a condition in Annexure A-I that the applicant had to be selected by P.S.C. in the first instance otherwise, the services of the applicant would be terminated without any notice. 32. From the perusal of Annexure A-I, it is clear that the following order was passed for the applicant: HINDI TYPE So, from the above condition, it is established that if the applicant failed to be selected by the P.S.C. at the first instance, the services of the applicant was not to be terminated suo-moto. The real meaning of the above order is that if the applicant was not successful to be selected by the P.S.C. at the first instance, the Government was entitled and fully empowered to terminate the services of the applicant without prior intimation and without any prior notice to the applicant and in this condition also it was necessary to pass an order regarding termination of the services of the applicant by the Government/non-applicants but it is pertinent to note that no order of termination of the applicant from the post of Asstt. Professor was ever passed by the Government and since no termination order was passed by the Government/non-applicants i.e. the competent authority, it cannot be presumed that the services of the applicant have been terminated suo-moto. (Please see Govind Pal Singh Jadon Vs. State of M.P.; 1994 MPLSR-17; Subhash Chand Khatri Vs. State of M.P.: 1998 MPLSR 399, Laxmi Vinod Samdariya Through L.Rs. Vs. State of M.P. & Others: 1998 MPLSR-518. 33. (Please see Govind Pal Singh Jadon Vs. State of M.P.; 1994 MPLSR-17; Subhash Chand Khatri Vs. State of M.P.: 1998 MPLSR 399, Laxmi Vinod Samdariya Through L.Rs. Vs. State of M.P. & Others: 1998 MPLSR-518. 33. From the above discussion and findings, it is clear that the applicant though was absent for a pretty long time, is still in service, so she is entitled to join her post as Asstt. Professor. 34. The applicant is also entitled for her pay of 90 days as a pay of maternity leave. 35. The applicant has not performed her duties and she was absent from her duty without leave being sanctioned, so she is not entitled for her pay for the period of her absence from duties on 'No Work, No Pay' basis and the period of the applicant after 2-7 -94 will be treated as dies-non. 36. It is hereby ordered that the non-applicants should allow the applicant to join her services as Asstt. Professor. A suitable order regarding her posting be passed within two months of the receipt of this order and she be paid the salary for a period of three months as maternity leave. Parties to bear their own costs." After hearing learned State Counsel, we do not consider it a case worth interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is sans merit. It is accordingly rejected. Petition Partly Allowed.