ANAND BHARTI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to the respondents to pay the amount of gratuity and family pension etc. as the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had served the respondents.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Shri Satyanand Sarswat had joined the services of respondents as Vaidhya with effect from 24-7-1964. He remained absent from duty on 5-7-77 and reported back on 2-8-84 after expiry of seven years and six months. He made various representations to the State for allowing him to continue in service. However, the respondents issued a letter dated 8-5-98 (Annx. 1) pointing out that it was a fresh appointment. He died while in service on 4-8-90. Hence this petition for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the services of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners could not treated to have been terminated and the order dated 8-5-89, treating it as a fresh appointment,is bad in law and liable to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs claimed. On the other hand Mr. R.N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents, has opposed the reliefs asked for by the petitioners on the ground that there is no provision to remain absent for a period of seven and half years and it was a clear case of abandonment of service. His further contention is that the order dated 8-5-89 had not been challenged by the said employee and the said order clearly stipulated that it was a fresh appointment and he would not be entitled for any benefit on the basis of the past services as the same stood forfeited.