SWARAN SINGH Vs. H.P.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in the present OA has prayed for the following reliefs: - "(a) the impugned orders Annexure -A -10, A -11 and A -15 may kindly be quashed and set aside; (b) Directions may kindly be issued to the respondent to absolute the applicant from the charges leveled against him honorably as if no offence has been committed by him; (c) Directions may also kindly be issued to the respondent to treat the period of his so called absence w.e.f. 9th February, 1989 to 30th September, 1992 as duty period, and the period from 16 -10 -1986 to 8.2.1989 when he was available for posting as period spent on duty and to pay him all the arrears of pay after regularizing his leave period as stated in preceding paras. (d) Directions may also kindly be issued to the respondent Board to regularize the period of his absence by granting him the leave of the kind due for the period from 16lh October 1986 to 8lh February, 1989 on the basis of the leave application duly supported by medical certificates as accepted to be genuine by the Inquiry Officer. Further, directions may also kindly be issued to the respondent to treat the period of duty w.e.f. 9.2.1989 to 30.9.1992 when he was available for service. (e) Directions may also kindly be issued to the respondent Board to the effect that the arrears of pay as due and admissible to the applicant for the period" from 6.10.1986 to 30.9.1992 may kindly be ordered to be paid to him with interest throughout. (f) Any other writ order or directions as this Honble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued/passed and justice be done. (g) The cost of this writ application may also kindly be awarded in favour of the applicant and against the respondent Board and justice be done."

(2.) The relevant facts which emerges from the pleadings are that the applicant while serving as a Junior Engineer, in HPSEB at Kaza in Rongton Hydel Project at Rangrik during 1975 was continued under the same Head Quarter even after his promotion till October, 1986 at the height of 13000 ft. which caused him various health problem as he was made to exceed normal tenure of two winters and three summers.

(3.) It is the case of the appellant that in the month of October 1986, he was deputed by his, XEN for procuring certain material from Chandigarh. The journey from Rangrik to Parwanoo / Chandigarh was performed by him with his Chief Engineer. The material was procured and handed over to the Junior Engineer (Store) at Parwanoo. At this point of time, he got information that his wife was seriously ill and as such he proceeded on leave oral permission of the accompanying Chief Engineer. Thereafter, he sought for extension of his leave from time to time due to illness of his wife, mother and self and medical certificates were also send by him. However, the leave was not extended.