LIAQ RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was transferred from Government High School, Purag to Government Middle School, Darkoti vide office order dated 17.05.2006. He was relieved in absentia on 29.05.2006. The office order dated 17.05.2006 was modified vide office order dated 31.07.2006, whereby the petitioner was adjusted at Government Senior Secondary School, Kotkhai. He submitted medical certificates vide Annexures P -4 and P -5. Thereafter, the medical leave was sanctioned by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Kotkhai on 06.10.2006 vide office order Annexure P -6. This leave was sanctioned for the period w.e.f. 19.05.2006 to 02.08.2006. The Principal also submitted a proforma for release of salary to the petitioner to the competent authority. Petitioner was legitimately expecting that on the basis of Annexure P -6 his salary for the relevant period shall also be released. However, it appears from the record that after a gap of more than three years, the respondent No. 4 has again taken up the matter with respondents No. 1 and 2. The respondent No 1 rejected the case of the petitioner on the basis of instructions dated 17.06.2004 and 11.08.2008 issued by the department on 18.08.2010. The Director was directed to take necessary action as per instructions dated 17.06.2004 and 11.8.2008. Ultimately, the respondent No. 4 issued a letter to the petitioner on 13.05.2011, whereby the period w.e.f. 19.05.2006 to

(2.) 08.2006 was to be treated as leave without pay (without break in service) and the salary for the period w.e.f. 19.05.2006 to 31.05.2006 and 01.08.2006 & 02.08.2006, i.e., 15 days pay was to be recovered as wrongly drawn on surplus basis in accordance with Government instructions for teachers dated 17.06.2004 and 11.08.2008. 2 Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that once the medical leave of the petitioner has been duly sanctioned vide Annexure P -6, dated 06.10.2006, Annexure P -8, dated 18.08.2010, Annexures P -10 and P -11, dated 13.05.2011 could not be issued. He further argued that the matter has been re -opened by the respondents after a considerable period, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.