GHANSHYAM DAS Vs. STATE PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 16-11-1995 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 524 of 1991 the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the said order to the extent it has dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. He has also assailed the order dated 5- 1-1996 whereby the Tribunal has rejected his review application.

(2.) THE facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Salesman in U. P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. , Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "corporation") vide appointment letter dated 29-12-1977 issued by the Regional Manager of the Corporation. THE petitioner joined his service on 2-1-1978 at Allahabad wherefrom he was transferred to Varanasi. He fell ill on 27-11-1980 and sent leave application on medical ground. THE respondent No. 3 issued an order dated 17/18-12-1980 informing the petitioner that leave applications dated 28-11- 1980, 8-12-1980 and 15-12-1980 have been rejected. THE petitioner was directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi for his opinion and also to submit joining report. THE petitioner claim to have visited Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi on 24-12-1980 but he was refused examination by Chief Medical Officer on the ground that no official communication has been received by Chief Medical Officer and in the absence thereof he would not submit any opinion. THE petitioner continued ill and could not join at all. Due to harassing attitude of respondent No. 3, the petitioner submitted letter dated 22-1- 1981 giving details on account whereof he was not in position to attend his duty. He also submitted resignation letter dated 22-1-1981 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition ). He withdrew his resignation vide his letter dated 7-3-1981 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) but neither any order was passed by the respondent No. 3 nor he was allowed to join service though several reminders and representations sent by the petitioner. THEreafter in 1991, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal which the Tribunal has allowed vide order dated 16-11-1995 so far as it pertains to salary for the period 27-11-1980 to 31-3- 1981 after considering his request for grant of leave in accordance with Rules but in respect to other matters, the claim petition has been rejected.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents opposing the writ petition supported the judgment of the Tribunal based on the stand taken in the counter-affidavit.