MOHIT SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment dated 6.8.2010 in CWP(T) No. 8222 of 2008 has been assailed in the appeal.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the father of the appellant while serving Agriculture Department died in harness. The appellant was appointed as Clerk on compassionate ground and joined as such on 31.3.1999. He absented from duty w.e.f. 4.2.2000, he vide registered letter dated 15.2.2000 was directed to resume duties, but the letter was received undelivered. A notice was got published in the Divya Himachal on 7.3.2000 and in Indian Express on 8.3.2000 informing that the appellant was being treated willfully absent from duty and was liable for action under the rules. He was informed to resume duties, failing which his services would be terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The appellant despite the notice failed to resume his duty. In these circumstances, the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 18.3.2000. The appellant was temporary employee.

(3.) THE appellant reported for duty in second week of May, 2001, but he was informed that his services stood already terminated on 18.3.2000. The appellant filed an appeal against his termination on 28.5.2001 but no decision on his appeal was conveyed. The appellant was wrongfully terminated. It has been urged that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record and has erred in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied Arun Kumar Gupta versus High Court of Himachal Pradesh and another 1993 (2) Recent Services Judgments, 449. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment.