SKAUST & ORS. Vs. SYED ZAFFAR IQBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Zaffar Iqbal - respondent herein was vide University order No.723(Est.) of 1986 dated 8.12.1986 temporarily appointed as Medical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 475-850 and posted against available vacancy of Medical Assistant in KVK/ETC Malangpora. The University - appellant before this court vide University order No.306/Est of 1989 dated 7.6.1989 declared the respondent to have completed his probation satisfactorily in terms of clause 18 chapter III of SKUAST Statutes of 1983. However, he in terms of the aforesaid order was to hold temporary status.

(2.) The respondent in Sept. 1993 submitted an application for grant of one month's leave in his favour w.e.f 14.9.1993. Leave sought, was duly granted in his favour vide order No.KVK/CS/93/1-3/301-2 dated 9.9.1993. However, the respondent after availing one month's leave did not resume his duty. He through a telegram requested for extension of leave for a further period of 30 days in his favour. The appellant at the request of respondent vide KVK/CS/94/583-85 dated 27.1.1994 sanctioned further one month's leave in his favour. The respondent again failed to resume his duty. He dispatched two more telegrams to the appellant requesting for extension of earned leave. However, the extension sought, was not granted in his favour.

(3.) The appellant vide communication No. AU/ KVK/ 947 284-85 dated 26.9.1994 asked the respondent to resume his duty and informed him that only after his joining duty, his request for extension of leave would be considered. The respondent was further informed that in the event he failed to resume his duty action would be taken in terms of Art. 128 J&K CSR against him. Petitioner responded to the communication dated 26.9.1994 by his letter dated nil addressed to Dy. Registrar of the appellant-University. The letter was received on 26.10.1994. Respondent in the aforesaid communication informed the appellant that he had taken up a job in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It was emphasised that as there was little work for him at his place of posting, his absence was not to affect the official work. He reiterated his request for grant of leave whatever due to him including leave without pay. The appellant did not sanction any leave in his favour nor did respondent resume his duty.