Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.14654 of 2013 Date of Decision :
11. 7.2013 Jaspreet Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ...Present: Mr.V.K.Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner....MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner impugns the order dated 31.12.2009 vide which his services had been terminated on account of prolonged absence from duty.
The petitioner was working as a Substitute Computer Teacher on contractual basis on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.4,500/-and the period of contract was extended from time to time.
He was permitted to join against a vacant post of Computer Teacher at Govt.
High School, Maur, Distt.
Faridkot on 16.9.2008.
In September 2009 the petitioner absented himself and thereafter did not return to work leading to his termination which is not a cause of grievance to the petitioner.
As a justification for his prolonged absence the petitioner has pleaded that he was suffering from Jaundice which C.W.P.No.14654 of 2013 -2- worsened to Hepatitis-C.
The fiRs.attempt that he made to approach his employer was on 31.12.2012 and in response to his request for re-joining the service he was informed that his services have already been terminated on 31.12.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of his ailment the petitioner could not re-join his services and, therefore, a great prejudice has been caused to him on this count as no inquiry etc.was held before his services were terminated.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, I am of the considered view that the petition is totally misconceived.
The petitioner was working as a contractual employee and, therefore, was governed by the terms of the employment.
His services, therefore, could be terminated after the expiry of contract or even on the ground of his work and conduct being unsatisfactory.
Since the petitioner did not report for duty and proceeded on leave without any subsequent intimation to his employer, the respondents were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner ever made any effort to inform the respondents regarding his inability to resume his work on account of his ailment.
That being so, there is hardly any justification to interfere in the action of the respondents more particularly when C.W.P.No.14654 of 2013 -3- the writ petition has been filed after four years of the passing of the impugned order.
The writ petition is, therefore, held to be without any merit besides being hit by delay and latches and the same is hereby dismissed.
11.7.2013 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss