ANAND BHARTI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) THE petitioners-appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased employee of the State who in the first instance had joined the service of respondents as Vaidhya w. e. f 24. 7. 1964. From 5. 07. 1977 he remained absent from duty without leave and thereafter, he tried to join alongwith an application for leave on 2. 08. 1984. His leave application was rejected. THEreafter he was allowed to join on 7. 5. 89 when he reappeared with the leave application. That application was decided on 29. 5. 90. THE order communicated him that it is not possible to sanction leave of such an inordinate long period and therefore he is being offered fresh appointment.

(3.) ATTENTION may also be invited to the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1955. Rule 86 provides that a Govt. servant who has remained absent from duty without leave or before leave applied for has been sanctioned by the competent authority, shall be treated to have remained wilfully absent from duty and such absence shall amount to interruption in service involving forfeiture of past service unless, on satisfactory reasons being furnished the absence is regularised by grant of leave due or is commuted into extra-ordinary leave by the authority competent to sanction leave. Obviously, present is a case where the Rules 86 is operated and the forfeiture of post services resulting in break of services for a long unauthorised absence has taken place as a result of non sanctioning of leave for the long period of absence upto 1989 applied in 1989 and treated the joining to be a fresh appointment on that anvil.