Kesha Ram Patel vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009

                                                     SBCWP No.3598/97
                                                                    1

                  S.B.C.W.P. No.3598/1997

        Kesha Ram Patel v. State of Rajasthan & others

Date of Order: 18th February, 2009

          HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR


None present for the petitioner
None present for respondents



     After   completing   training   relating   to     multi-purpose

workers, petitioner was employed as Multi-purpose Worker

under an order dated 19th January, 1991 passed by the Chief

Medical & Health Officer, Jodhpur. By the same order, posting

was given to the petitioner at Primary Health Center, Kakelao

(Salawas), Jodhpur.



     As per averments made in the petition for writ, petitioner

remained absent from duties somewhere in 1991 due to acute

illness and after getting fit, he reported on 15th June, 1994 to

resume the duties. However, he was not allowed to do so. No

action was taken by the respondents for pretty long time,

therefore, a notice for demand of justice was also given by the

petitioner to respondents through his counsel on 18th November,

1996. On failing to get any favour from the respondents' corner,

this petition for writ was preferred by the petitioner seeking a

direction for respondents to allow him to resume the duties.
                                                    SBCWP No.3598/97
                                                                  2

      In reply to the writ petition, it is stated by the respondents

that the petitioner, after drawing salary on 05th August, 1991

with respect to period from January, 1991 to June, 1991; did not

choose to report on duties though a bond was executed by him

at the time of initial appointment that he will work with the

respondents for a period of five years. As per respondents, the

petitioner never applied for any medical leave and no joining

report was submitted by him on 15th June, 1994 as stated in the

petition. The respondents, in quite unambiguous terms stated

that the document dated 15th June, 1994 (Annx.1) is a forged

one. The stand of the respondents is that, as a matter of fact,

petitioner abandoned the service and as such, the instant one is

not a case of absence but of abandonment from service. No

rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondents is submitted

by the petitioner.



      Precisely, the question that requires adjudication is that

whether the petitioner remained absent from duties due to his

ailment or he abandoned the service?



      The petitioner has not placed any document on record to

substantiate the fact averred in the writ petition that he

remained absent from duties due to illness and for that he

submitted an application. In entire petition for writ, not a single
                                                     SBCWP No.3598/97
                                                                   3

word regarding nature of petitioner's ailment is referred. The

petitioner has placed on record copy of joining report dated 15th

June,    1994,   genuineness    of   which   is   disputed   by   the

respondents. Even after receiving reply to the writ petition,

petitioner did not choose to place on record any evidence to

substantiate the contention that he was suffering from such an

ailment that prevented him from report on duties for years

together. Nothing is stated by the petitioner regarding allegation

of the respondents that the document Annx.1 dated 15th June,

1994 is forged one.

        In the factual background above, a valid inference can be

drawn that the petitioner abandoned the service and after lapse

of substantial period, he want to convert the same as absence

for the reasons beyond his control. I do not find any bona fide on

the part of petitioner to claim his absence from duties as genuine

one. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, abandoned the service.

Therefore, respondents rightly did not allow him to resume

duties as claimed in the notice for demand of justice submitted

on behalf of petitioner.

        For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in

this petition for writ. Same is, therefore, dismissed.



                                              [GOVIND MATHUR],J.

mma