Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 31.1.2007, Annexure P-4 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the CAT), Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. 2. The case of the petitioner was that she was working as a Librarian. She applied for leave from 30.10.1996 to 31.1.1996. She thereafter sent telegrams for grant/extension of medical leave. She joined back on 20.12.1996 and again applied for leave on 1.1.1997. She joined on 2.5.1997 and she was advised to wait for the decision. On 25.6.1997, she was advised to join. She applied for leave again from 16.9.1997 to 14.10.1997. The Principal of the School vide letter dated 6.3.1998 informed the petitioner that she was absent for more than 90 days. The petitioner submitted her joining report on 14.12.1999. She was given a show-cause notice under Article 81(d) (3) of the Education Code for ordering loss of lien on account of unauthorised absence. Thereafter, impugned order dated 26.4.2002 was passed directing loss of lien of the petitioner with effect from 30.10.1996. The said order was affirmed in appeal which was dismissed on 2.8.2003. The petitioner approached the CAT and having been unsuccessful, has field this petition. 3. The stand of the respondents before the CAT was that the petitioner was absent without leave from 30.10.1996. On 14.3.2001, a show cause notice was given to her proposing to order loss of her lien from the date of absence. No reply having been received, the impugned order was passed. Even before the Appellate Authority, no order of sanction of leave was produced. 4. The CAT held that the petitioner did not dispute unauthorised absence for more than 4 years. Mere sending of application was no justification for the absence. It was further observed that on account of her absence, library work of the School suffered. Application for extension of leave was not supported by any medical certificate. The CAT, inter-alia, observed as under :- " In the instant case in hand as we have noticed that the applicant had been absenting herself from duties in an unauthorized manner since October, 1996 and during the long period of these 4 years of her absence she never expressed her intention to join duties keeping in view that when she was advised to contact the Asstt. Commissioner she has not produced any single document to show that she had in fact contacted Asstt. Commissioner she has not produced any single document to show that she had in fact contacted Asstt. Commissioner to join duties at the place where she was working, we find no illegality in the orders. 5. The CAT also relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Prem Juneja v. Union of India, 2003 (1) SCT 690 wherein judgment of the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 was relied upon upholding the Rule of automatic loss of lien for unauthorised absence, to the following effect:- " A reading of the aforesaid Article 81(d) leaves no manner of doubt that it does not suffer from any of the vices on the basis of which it has been attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid Article 81(d) of the Education Code is violative of the equality clause. There is nothing in Article 81(d) of the Education Code which makes it unjust, unfair and unreasonable. It is meant to deal with an unwarranted situation of absentism. Absentism is a bane of public service. The erring employees have been taking advantage of the procedure and mocking at the system. unauthorized absentism in offices is rampant. There are instances galore where the employees remained absent from several years and yet were able to successfully challenge the orders of their terminations. This had given undue advantage to the erring employees. They not only were able to get the orders of termination quashed or set aside, but they were also reinstated with full back wages. This situation cannot be allowed to prevail. The indiscipline must be curbed in order to infuse efficiency and discipline in the services. It was possibly in this view of the matter that Article 81(d) of the Education Code was framed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. It is patent that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for more than 4 years. No justification for the said absence has been established. There is no medical certificate on record showing such illness which may make it difficult for the petitioner to attend duties. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. It is patent that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for more than 4 years. No justification for the said absence has been established. There is no medical certificate on record showing such illness which may make it difficult for the petitioner to attend duties. The petitioner was admittedly not getting any Salary after 30.10.1996 from which date she was being treated as absent till the filing of the application before the CAT on 25.8.2001. The petitioner did not take any remedy for payment of salary. Even upto the date of passing of impugned order, no legal remedy was taken by the petitioner which implies that the petitioner was not interested in service. No person will remain without taking a remedy for a number of years if he/she is not getting any salary. In view of the above circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.