MOHAMMED ASHFAQ Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of punishment order dated 26.6.2003 (Annexure -20), the order dated 30.6.2003 (Annexure -21) as well as the order dated 21.9.2005 (Annexure -24) passed by appellate authority and prayed for reinstatement in service along with back wages with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was initially appointed as Male Nurse Gr. II on 10.6.1977 after due process of law. After working for nine years as Male Nurse Gr. II in substantive capacity, he applied for foreign assignment in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through proper channel. The application for the petitioner was forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government with No Objection Certificate was also issued by the State Government on 2.7.1986. On the basis of No objection Certificate issued by the State Government for assignment being taken by the petitioner in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for one year, the petitioner was relieved to join foreign assignment when he was working at Mahatama Gandhi Hospital. Jodhpur on the post of Male Nurse Gr. II on 14.7.1986.

(2.) Before 15.7.1989 -extended contract period, the petitioner again submitted an application for extension of leave on the ground that Ministry of Health. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not inclined to relieve the petitioner looking to his exemplary service, therefore, the contract was further renewed for further two years and in pursuance of the said extension of contract by the Ministry of Health. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, again an application was made by the petitioner to the Secretary. Medical & Health (Ground -III) Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur through registered post inter -alia stating therein that although no decision has been received on his last two applications, but in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it was again presumed by the petitioner that leave has been sanctioned. As per petitioner, it was presumed by him that some orders might have been passed by the Secretary. Medical & Health Department but no formal communication has been sent to him for the purpose of extension of leave, therefore, petitioner remained at Saudi Arabia on the basis of extension of contract.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he was allowed to leave the country after sanction of leave by the competent authority for one year but his contract was extended from time to time, therefore, as and when extension of contract was made by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, he made an application for extension of leave but did not receive any response either from the Secretary or the Director of Medical Department. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of renewal of contract.