ABDUL QAYOOM SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the State Health Services Department way back in the year 1982. Petitioner applied for grant of earned leave for a period of sixty days, which was granted in his favour w.e.f. 4th September, 1995. The petitioner, after expiry of sixty days sanctioned leave, did not rejoin his duties. Petitioner, on 12th June, 2000 approached Directorate of Health Services Kashmir with request that he be permitted to rejoin his duties. The petitioner had remained away from duties for a period of four years nine months and fourteen days from 4th Nobvember, 1995, the date on which he was scheduled to resume his duties after the expiry of sanctioned leave. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Government in terms of paragraph-C of Government Order No. 483-HME of 2000 dated 4th August, 2000 and petitioner was allowed to join as fresh appointee. The petitioner, after joining his services approached to the respondents and requested them to treat his period of unauthorized absence from duties as dies-non, and/or as leave whatever kind due to him. The petitioner also approached this Court by filing SWP. No.945/2006 which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 4th December, 2006 and respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation which may have been or may be filed within two weeks for redressal of his grievances with due regard to the Government Order which was mentioned in the said judgment. Petitioner was given liberty to re-agitate the matter afresh if cause survives.

(2.) The Government vide Government Order No. 760-HME of 2007 dated 12th November, 2007, considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same. It is this order, which is called in question in this writ petition, inter-alia on the ground that similarly circumstanced persons have been given benefit of continuous service and their period of unauthorized absence from duties have been treated either on leave due to them or diesnon.

(3.) On notice issued, respondents have filed reply affidavit/objections, in which the facts which have been detailed out hereinabove have been mentioned. It has been stated that the petitioner having accepted the Government Order No. 483-HME of 2000 dated 4th August, 2000, he cannot turn round and seek a different benefit. Respondents have not, however, dealt with the claim of the petitioner in respect of those persons who are said to be similarly circumstanced with him and who have been given a different treatment and thus the petitioner's claim of having been allegedly subjected to invidious discrimination has remained unanswered.