Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 793 (JHR)

Ugendra Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-07-10

M.Y.EQBAL

body2003
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order dated 8.6.2002, whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated by the respondents/Ranchi University and further for a direction to the University to allow the petitioner to join the service. 3. Petitioner was appointed in the year 1979 as Air Conditioning mechanic. Petitioners case is that in 1984 he fell sick and went to his native place for taking rest as per the advice of the doctor. In 1985, he sent application for leave. It is stated by him that when he recovered from his ailment, his wife fell ill and therefore, he could not joint his duty. It is only in 2001, petitioner said to have come to Ranchi and filed application requesting the University to allow him to join Respondent-University however, terminated the services of the petitioner. 4. Respondents case in the counter affidavit is that when petitioner became absent from his duty, a show cause notice was given to him on 23.1.1985 asking the petitioner to join his duty. Again a letter-dated 7.2.1985 was served on the petitioner asking him to join his duty but he did not join. It is contended that petitioner has been absenting from his duty for a long period of 17 years and therefore he ceases to be in the service of the University in terms of the Statute 260 of the Ranchi University Statute. 5. According to the Statute 260 an employee shall be deemed to have ceased to be in the service of the University after he has been continuously absent from duty for a period of five years. I am conscious of the legal proposition that even if an employee remain absent for a long period his service could not be terminated without following the procedure of law. But in the instant case, as appears from the writ petition, petitioner remains absent from 1984 and sent a letter in 1985 for sanction of leave but his leave was never granted. It is only in 2001 i.e. about after 16 years petitioner filed an application and requested the University to allow him to join his duty. 6. But in the instant case, as appears from the writ petition, petitioner remains absent from 1984 and sent a letter in 1985 for sanction of leave but his leave was never granted. It is only in 2001 i.e. about after 16 years petitioner filed an application and requested the University to allow him to join his duty. 6. Taking into consideration the statute referred herein above and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner approached the University after remaining absent for about 17 years, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in exercise of my writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the impugned order needs no interference. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.