BISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 01.07.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, rejecting the claim made by the appellantpetitioner for release of salary with effect from 01.10.1992 to 17.07.1996. The basis of claim is that for the aforesaid period the appellant-petitioner is deemed to have performed duties because he had submitted application for voluntary retirement having rendered 28 years of service. It was on account of apathy on the part of the respondent-State that the appellant-petitioner was compelled to rejoin on 18.07.1996. The learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that, in fact, the appellant-petitioner did not perform any duty and remained unauthorizedly absent from 01.10.1992 to 17.07.1996. In that regard, detailed reference has been made to Annexure-A, which, in fact, is an application filed by the appellantpetitioner before the Headmaster of Government High School, Soomber (Doda) for release of his salary with effect from 01.10.1992 to 17.07.1996. In the aforesaid application, he claimed to have applied for voluntary retirement in the year 1992. The appellant-petitioner has further claimed that when he did not receive any order from the higher authorities, he joined his service on 18.07.1996. The observations of the learned Single Judge concluding that the appellant-petitioner did not perform his duties from 01.10.1992 to 17.07.1996 are discernible from the following para which reads thus:-

(2.) THE learned Single Judge also referred to a letter from the record being letter no. 139 H.S.S dated 22.02.1997, sent by the then Headmaster, Government High School, Soomber (Doda) to the Chief Education Officer. The letter specifically records that the appellant-petitioner had not performed any duty in any school from October 01, 1992 to July 17, 1996 and had joined duties only on 18.07.1996. In the aforesaid application, the appellant-petitioner has himself stated that he performed duties at Government High School Soomber (Doda) upto September, 1992 and being a member of Hindu family he faced threat by the militants. Therefore, he had no option but to leave the place on account of fear and frustration. When the peace was restored he joined on 18.07.1996. The appellant-petitioner has asserted that gap between 01.10.1992 to 17.07.1996 may be treated as on duty. From the aforesaid letter, it is also concluded by the learned Single Judge that principle of 'no work ' 'no pay ' would apply in his case as the appellant-petitioner did not work during the relevant period.

(3.) MR . Ravinder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the appellantpetitioner never applied for voluntary retirement. According to the learned State counsel, a false plea has been set up only to derive certain benefits and avoid initiation of any disciplinary action. Mr. Sharma, has maintained that on account of fear and frustration, the appellant-petitioner left the job and, in fact, was absent from duty for about four years without any authorization. The State has taken a lenient view and has allowed him to join and then superannuate.