Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. Affidavit filed by Shri S.P. Aggarwal, Executive Engineer, Narwana, W/S Division, Narwana is taken ort record. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit him to join duties on regular basis. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as work-charge Beldar on 1.11.1978 and his Services were accordingly regularized vide letter dated 18.8.1988, as per the policy of the State, which stated that the Services of all work-charge employees who had completed 4 years of Service as on 1.12.1986, were to be regularized with effect from 1.1.1987. It is the contention of the petitioner that he became seriously ill and for two years, he could not submit his joining report. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his joining report vide application dated 19.10.1988 (Annexure P-2) along with the medical certificate but he was not allowed to join duties. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a reminder dated 28.11.1988 (Annexure P-3) but that also did not bore any fruit rather he received letter dated 29.1.1989 (Annexure P-4) from the Executive Engineer, Narwana Division that he cannot be absorbed as there is no vacancy in the Division. Lateron 23.2.1989, the petitioner received a letter that he should approach the Executive Engineer WJC Jind for further action. The petitioner approached the Executive Engineer also but still he has not been allowed to join duties till date. 4. Upon notice having been issued the respondents have filed a written Statement. It has been stated therein that the petitioner was transferred to WJC Division Jind vide letter dated 31.7.1986, (Annexure R-l) of the Executive Engineer, Narwana Division and he was relieved on 4.8.1986 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shudkan Sub Division. The petitioner refused to receive/note the transfer order. He left the Job on his own will and from 5.7.1986 to 18.10.1988 he did not send any intimation about his illness. During this period, the whereabouts of the petitioner were also not known and no intimation regarding his illness was received by the Department. On this basis, the respondents contend that the petitioner has, on his own will, abandoned the job. During this period, the whereabouts of the petitioner were also not known and no intimation regarding his illness was received by the Department. On this basis, the respondents contend that the petitioner has, on his own will, abandoned the job. It is further their contention that the medical certificate so furnished by the petitioner has been issued by a private doctor which does not give the period of treatment and the rest which has been prescribed under the medical certificate. As per the provisions contained in Rule 14,1 of the Manual of Administration, the leave applications on medical certificates in all such cases are required to be reviewed with suspicion and only a certificate from the Civil Surgeon is to be accepted. The petitioner was required to submit his leave application along with a medical certificate at the first instance to the competent Authority for sanction of leave but the same having not been done, the petitioner was notentitled to any relief. 5. On 10.11.2008, when the case was taken up for hearing, the respondents were directed to file an affidavit giving the position with regard to the Claim of the petitioner. An affidavit dated 26.11.2008 has been filed in Court wherein the factual aspect with regard to the appointment of the petitioner on work Charge basis on the post of Beldar has been accepted. It has been submitted that the petitioner was transferred and was relieved on 4.8.1986 by the Executive Engineer, Narwana, to join his duties in WJC Division, Jind. The petitioner neither joined his duty as work- charge Beldar nor any intimation regarding his absence was given. He remained absent for the period from 5.8.1986 to 18.10.1988 without any intimation. It has been further stated that the petitioners name was inadvertently recommended for regularization of service by the Executive Engineer, Kaithal Division, IB Kaithal, vide letter dated 23.4.1987 where the petitioner was first appointed as work Charge Beldar along with other employees of that Division. As per the Instructions governing the Services of the employees, those employees were to be regularized who had completed fouryears regular service as on 1.1.1987. Since the petitioner had already left the service with effect from 5.8.1986 of his own volition, therefore, he was not entitled to any salary or regularization. As per the Instructions governing the Services of the employees, those employees were to be regularized who had completed fouryears regular service as on 1.1.1987. Since the petitioner had already left the service with effect from 5.8.1986 of his own volition, therefore, he was not entitled to any salary or regularization. It is only when the petitioner came to know that an order regularizing his Services has been passed in his favour, although inadvertently, he approached the Sub-Divisionai Officer, Shudkan at Narwana on 19.10.1988 along with the medical certificate issued by different private clinics in which no period of his treatment was mentioned, and therefore, he was rightly not allowed to rejoin service. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the records of the case. 7. Mr. Malik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the order of regularization of the Services of the petitioner has been issued, for all intents and purposes, he was a regular employee and his Services were to be regularized and until and unless that order is cancelled, waived or corrected, the right which has accrued to the petitioner cannot be said to have extinguished. It is his contention that the petitioner has all through been working with the respondents from November, 1978 onwards and it is only in the year 1986 that he because of his illness could not attend the duty for about two years, for which he cannot be held disentitled to Claim regularization. It is his Submission that in case the respondents wanted to initiate action against the petitioner, he should have been allowed to join and thereafter, action should have been initiated against him as per the Service Rules. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that there was wilful abandonment of Job by the petitioner who was working on work Charge basis and on his transfer from Narwana Division to WJG Jind Division, End, he did not join his duty at the Station where he was transferred. The relieving Orders are dated 4.8.1986 and the petitioner absented from 5.8.1986 onwards till on 19.10.1988 when he only submitted his joining report on Coming to know about issuance of order dated 29.6.1988 wherein his Services were regularized as Beldar. The relieving Orders are dated 4.8.1986 and the petitioner absented from 5.8.1986 onwards till on 19.10.1988 when he only submitted his joining report on Coming to know about issuance of order dated 29.6.1988 wherein his Services were regularized as Beldar. Counsel contends that as per the policy of regularization, the petitioner should have been in service on the date i.e. 1.1.1987 and should have by that time completed more than four years of regular service. Since the petitioner had left the service on 5.8.1986 and was not in service since then, therefore, in any case, the petitioner was not entitled to claim regularization. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that for a person to be entitled to regularization of his Services should fulfillthe conditions which are precedent for claiming the benefit under that policy and since the petitioner did not fulfill those conditions he would not be entitled to regularization. Further, the petitioner was not in service either on the relevant date i ,e. 1.1.1987 or on the date when the order of regularization was passed in his favour i.e. 29.6.1988. Further, the petitioner had remained wilfully absent from service and as a matter of fact, after being relieved from service or transferred to WJC End Division, Jind, he did not join the said place of posting. It is no doubt true that if an order of regularization has been passed in favour of the petitioner, he does have a right to regularization provided he fulfills the conditions. However, the records would show that the petitioner was not entitled to regularization and, therefore, the contention of the respondents that his name was recommended inadvertently by the Executive Engineer, Kaithai Division IB, Kaithal for regularization vide letter dated 23.4.1997 is correct, for the simple reason that he was no more in service with effect from 5.8.1986. Further, the conduct of the petitioner is such that no sympathetic view can be taken by this Court in favour of he petitioner as well. 10. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed