Judgment Viney Mittal and j. JJ. 1. The plaintiff is in second appeal. He has remained unsuccessful before the two courts below. 2. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff on April 11,1991. Order dated October 24,1983 was challenged whereby the plaintiff was dismissed from service. The plaintiff also challenged the order dated October 6,1984 passed by the Commissioner, dismissing his appeal and the order dated August 10,1987 passed by the Financial commissioner, dismissing the review/revision filed by the plaintiff. 3. The facts which emerge from the record show that the plaintiff was working as a Kanungo with the State of Punjab and he filed an application for grant of leave on March 3,1982 for a period of four months to visit U. S. A. The plaintiff handed over charge of his post. From u. S. A. he sent a request that he was unable to return back to India on account of his ill health. He applied for extension of leave which was never extended. 4. The defendants maintained that the plaintiff had never been granted any leave originally also by any competent authority and,therefore, the plaintiff had remained absent from duty. A notice was issued to the plaintiff to resume his duties and was published in "tribune" on August 2,1982 but the plaintiff never resumed his duties. A charge sheet was served upon him on november 4,1982 and on receipt of his reply, his explanation was considered as unsatisfactory and a final notice was served upon him to resume his duties. 5. The plaintiff failed to resume his duties and,therefore, an order of dismissal was passed on October 24,1983. The said order was served upon the plaintiff in U. S. A. The learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff as barred by limitation. An appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the appellate court. The decree of the trial Court was upheld. 6. It is apparent that the plaintiff had left India in the year 1983 and, thereafter, had never returned. The suit in question was filed by him through his attorney. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff had abandoned his job. In these circumstances, the suit in question and even the present appeal has been filed by him merely as a luxury litigation and merely with a view to extract financial benefits. The suit in question was filed by him through his attorney. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff had abandoned his job. In these circumstances, the suit in question and even the present appeal has been filed by him merely as a luxury litigation and merely with a view to extract financial benefits. At any point of time, the plaintiff cannot be taken to have been serious in returning back to India to resume his duties. 7. On account of abandonment of his post by the plaintiff, the defendants had been left with no other alternative except to dismiss him from service. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.