JUDGMENT (R.B. Misra, J.) (Oral) - CMPM No.156/2008. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2.For the reasons stated in the application, the delay has satisfactorily been explained. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. LPA No. 26/2008 3.With the consent of the parties, the present appeal is being disposed of at the admissions stage. 4.The present appeal has been preferred against order dated 17th July, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWP No. 196 of 2005, whereby discharge, dated 4th June, 2004 of respondent Tilak Raj from service, was set aside, and the respondent was directed to be reinstated as Grenadier with all consequential benefits, i.e. seniority and continuity in service, with further direction that the respondent is entitled for back wages to the extent of 50 per cent only. 5.It appears, the respondent had applied for selection to the post of Grenadier, by virtue of having qualification of Matric pass from Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. The respondent’s father was permanently residing and working in Delhi since 1994 and the respondent was also residing with him. The respondent was recruited as Grenadier on 27th December, 2002 and was sent for training to Jabalpur and after having completed his training was posted as Sepoy/Grenadier on 19th January, 2007. 6.During course of the verification of character and antecedents, it was found that in the form for getting employment filled-up by the respondent, the respondent has mentioned his residence as Delhi. Mentioning of residence at Delhi was taken as a false information. For that a show cause notice was served upon the respondent and the verification was obtained through Deputy Commissioner of Police, Sought/west Range, whereby the respondent was reported to have resided in Delhi from March, 2002 to March 2003 and, as such, Delhi was a temporary and not the permanent residence of the respondent. It appears the recruitment of Grenadier was perhaps to be made on State-wise and category-wise against the vacancies released by Army Headquarter from time to time and according to the appellant the candidate has to indicate his permanent address in the prescribed form for getting employment. It appears the recruitment of Grenadier was perhaps to be made on State-wise and category-wise against the vacancies released by Army Headquarter from time to time and according to the appellant the candidate has to indicate his permanent address in the prescribed form for getting employment. 7.On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent, herein, that there was only one column in the form and no other column was provided where the candidate could specify both his temporary or permanent residential address and the respondent has accordingly mentioned only his residential address of Delhi. 8.The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order has noted as under :- “I have perused the record. There is only one column pertaining to the address which is required to be filled up. The form in itself does not specify that permanent address of the applicant is required to be filled up. Learned Counsel has relied upon Shyam Kumar v. Union of India and others, 1981(II) Lab.I.C. 1066 and Chaukas Ram v. Sub-Area Commander, Allahabad and another, 1991 Lab.I.C. 1056, to contend that the petitioner was required to fill in permanent address cannot be read into the form which was required to be filled in by the petitioner. I am in agreement with the counsel that there was no specific requirement stipulated in the form whereby the petitioner was required to mention about his permanent place of residence. The `residence’ obviously would mean residence existing in reality and in fact and not merely in form. In Mohan Singh v. Lajya Ram and others, reported in AIR 1956 Punjab 188, it has been held that expression `resides’ does not import any permanency of residence. Same is the view in Sampooram v. Sundaresan, reported in AIR 1953 Mad. 78. In Union of India and others v. Dudh Nath Prasad, reported in AIR 2000 SC 525, it has been held :- “Word `residence’ has been defined as personal presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined period, not infrequently, but no necessarily combined with design to stay permanently.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sr. T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, passed in Appeal (Civil) 2747 of 2007 decided on 18th May, 2007 to contend that there has been no deliberate act on the part of the petitioner to suppress his permanent address and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Court the said alleged act of petitioner cannot be held to be concealment...........” 9.On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, the learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the form issued by the appellant prescribes only one column regarding residential address and it does not prescribe that the recruitment has to be made region-wise and no indication was made in the form or by any of Circular that the address required to be filled up by the candidate is of permanent place of residence. Learned Single Judge has also arrived at a finding that by indicating Delhi address, the respondent could not have gained any benefit as the criteria of selection to the post of Grenadier in Delhi and Himachal Pradesh was similar, and by mentioning the address of Himachal Pradesh the respondent could not have derived any disadvantage. Since respondent’s father was residing and working in Delhi for more than a decade, therefore, even Indicating Delhi address cannot be said to be false. 10.We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record. 11.We are of the considered view that the respondent had applied for the post of Grenadier and had disclosed his residential address as Delhi in the column prescribed for, which, according to him, was correct, and that there were no separate columns where the respondent could have indicated both his permanent and temporary addresses. The respondent has not concealed anything, moreso, when there is no indication in the advertisement that the vacancy of Grenadier was meant for the candidates residing in Delhi region only and not for the candidates residing in the other State of the country. 12.In view of the above observation, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in the appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed. CMP No. 159/2008 In view of the dismissal of LPA No. 26 of 2008, this application has become infructuous. As such, dismissed as infructuous. We do not find any merit in the appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed. CMP No. 159/2008 In view of the dismissal of LPA No. 26 of 2008, this application has become infructuous. As such, dismissed as infructuous. M.R.B. ———————