BODH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenged three orders copies of which are Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' to the writ petition, but the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the orders, copies of which are Annexures 'B' and 'C' have since been quashed by the appellate authority and he does not seek any redress from this Court with regard to those two orders. He only presses his relief with regard to the order, a copy of which is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition.

(2.) The facts so far as relevant for the purposes of the order under challenge are that the petitioner applied for earned from October 21, 1967 to October 27, Rs. 967, and that leave was refused by the Collector, Hissar, on November 14, 1967. While refusing the leave, the Collector also directed that "this period will amount to break in service". The learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to refer to any rule which authorised the Collector to pass the order that the period of refused leave will be counted as break in service. The rule under which an order refusing leave can be passed is rule 8.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, which reads as under :-

(3.) For the reasons given above, I accept this writ petition only to the extent of quashing the order, a copy of which is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The Collector will be at liberty to pass a fresh order on the leave application of the petitioner in accordance with the service Rules. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 50/-.