DAYA SHANKAR SAKYAWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the matters are inter -connected, on the joint request of the parties were analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) IN WP No. 7813/2003 the petitioner has prayed for grant of salary from 27.6.2000 to 24.6.2002. It is further prayed that earned leave sanctioned by Annexure A -6 dated 26.4.2002 be converted as medical leave. Subsequently, by amending the petition, the punishment order dated 22.1.2007 and the appellate order dated 15.10.2009 are also called in question.

(3.) SHRI Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was absent for some time. Thereafter, by order Annexure A-VII (d) dated 6.7.2000, the petitioner's joining report was not accepted and it was directed that the petitioner should join with fitness certificate of the doctor. It is contended that Annexure P -6 in WP No. 694/2009 shows that the "Establishment Pay Bill" for the period in question was already passed. Shri Jain submits that once that bill is passed, it is clear that the period in question stood regularized. The attention is drawn on internal page 5 of the punishment order dated 22.1.2007. Against the heading "Charge No.1", it is mentioned that the payment has been made from 1.7.2000 to 30.9.2000. In other words, it is mentioned that the said period is regularized by granting leave. The contention is two fold. Firstly, once that period is regularized by granting leave, there is no question of treating the said period as unauthorised absence. Secondly, for said period once leave is granted and amount is sanctioned by way of pay bill, there is no justification in not making the actual payment.