DWARKA PRASHAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case a reply has not been filed by the respondents but this writ petition can be disposed of on facts which have not been disputed on their behalf by the learned Additional Advocate General.

(2.) PETITIONER Dwarka Prashad was confirmed as a clerk in the Posts and Telegraphas Department with effect from March 1, 1961 vide order Ex. 2 dated April 1, 1962, and he continues to hold that post. There was a strike of the employees of the Government of India on September 19, 1968, and the petitioner did not attend his office on that day. He attended the office from September 20, 1968 onwards. Treating him as absent on September 19, 1968, the petitioner was not paidl h's salary for that day, and his annual increment was also put off by one day. No disciplinary proceeding was however taken against him.

(3.) I may here make a reference to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. , vs. Its Workmen (l), on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner's learned counsel. The meaning of the words "continuous service" came up for consideration before their Lordships, and even though the consideration was in the context of the scheme of gratuity, their Lordships laid down, if I may be permitted to say so, a very clear and workable test that where there is continuance of the relationship of master and servant between an employer and his employee, the service should be held to be continuous. As it is not disputed that this was so in case of the petitioner, I am fortified by the view taken by their Lordships in holding that in the present case also the petitioner's service should be held to be continuous.