KRISHNA SEN Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Devnath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner/appellant herein was initially appointed on 20.07.82 by the Executive Engineer, PHED Store Division, Dimapur, Nagaland as Work charged Khalasi (Typist). Later on the appellant was promoted by order dated 20th July, 1989 to the post of W/C Typist in the scale of pay of Rs.450-11-530-12-670-EB-15-805/- P.M. plus all other allowances as are admissible from time to time, under the rules of Government of Nagaland with effect from 21.7.1989. This promotion order says that it is temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. The petitioner/appellant was sick and therefore applied for sick leave for treatment. She was granted medical leave on 6.11.97 upto 20.11.1997. It is the case of the appellant that while taking treatment at Kolkata the Doctor had advised her to take further treatment and therefore she stayed at Kolkata even after the expiry of her medical leave. The petitioner prayed for extension of her leave by Telegram message dated 13.01.1998. The petitioner/appellant continued to take the treatment and it is only on 1.5.1998 that she reported for duty. The official of the Department refused to accept her joining report and ultimately an order was passed discharging her service on 27.5.1998. The petitioner/appellant aggrieved by the order of discharge has approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner was a work charged employee and under Rule 48 of the Nagaland Public Works Department Code, the work charged employee is entitled only to have the casual leave on full pay for 12 days in a year and in addition another 15 days casual leave on medical ground on Ml pay in a year and therefore the petitioner/ appellant cannot avail further leave beyond the period of leave which has the sanction of Rule 48 of the Nagaland Public Works Department Code. The petitioner having exceeded the limited period leave and remained absent, she has violated Rule 48, and therefore, the order of termination of the service of the petitioner was iss'ied in accordance with law and no interference is called for. On this finding the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal the present appeal is filed.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/ State that the petitioner/appellant being a work charged employee she has no right over the post and therefore her services could have been terminated without giving any prior notice to that effect. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner on the other hand, contended that the petitioner's services has not been terminated on account of she being, a work charged employee but the termination is on account of the fact that she has over stayed the leave thus the termination is on account of misconduct found against her which necessitates prior inquiry.