MUNSHI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed peon in the Education Department and was posted in M.L Higher Secondary School, Udhampur, on 15.12.1956. He allegedly suffered from psychotic depression and stayed away from duty from 18.1.1974. He has filed this petition in 1988 complaining that his request for extension of leave on medical grounds was turned down unjustifiably and that respondent No. 3 did not allow him to join his duties in the absence of the fitness certificate. He thereafter approached respondent No.3 for grant of invalid pension which was forwarded to respondent No. 4 who rejected it. He thereafter served a notice on respondent No. 1 on 20.7.1987 informing him that he be allowed to join on duty as he was fit now. His whole case is that since his services were not terminated by any formal order, he should be deemed to be in service and allowed to join even though he is on the verge of retirement.

(2.) THE state -respondent has filed objections talking the stand that the petitioner had remained absent from service from 1974 and had not produced any fitness certificate to be allowed to join duty or for grant of invalid pension as required under rules. It is submitted that he was unfit for Govt. Service as his mental illness could not be cured on his admission as the doctors could not certify his fitness. He availed of sick leave for 1 year 6 months and 26 days and thereafter did not seek any extension in it. His case was recommended for grant of invalid pension which was returned for want of requisite medical certificate in terms of Article 216 of J&K Civil Service Regulations .It is also pointed out that the petitioner had taken away his service book and, therefore, his case for grant of invalid pension could not be examined further.

(3.) PETITIONER â„¢s counsel, Mr. Wazir, contended that the petitioner did not cease to be in service as no order was passed by the respondents terminating his services. According to him the provisions of Article 113 & 128 of the J&K CSR were not attracted to his case because admittedly, no inquiry was conducted against him nor any action taken under rules which could lead !o his removal from service. He sought support from AIR 1966 SC 492, AIR 1971 S.C. 1409 and AIR 1976 S.C. 37.