Jia Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner is claiming wages for the period w.e.f. 01.03.1992 to 30.09.1992 and for the month of December, 1992 and also for the period w.e.f. 01.03.1993 to 30.04.1995. The case of the Petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that though he had worked for the period mentioned hereinabove, however, the Respondent-department has not paid him the wages.

Mr. R.S. Gautam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that though his client has worked with the Respondent-department, however, he has not been paid the wages for the same.

Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the Petitioner had remained absent for the period in question, therefore, he cannot be paid the wages.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

Petitioner has been informed about his willful absence on 7.4.1992, 22.5.1992, 28.5.1992, 4.6.1992 and 7.9.1992 by the Assistant Engineer of Kotkhai Sub-Division and Executive Engineer of Jubbal Division. It is also evident from the letters dated 28.1.1994 and 19.2.1994 that the Petitioner had not resumed his duties. Further perusal of letter dated 5.5.1994, 14.9.1994 and 4.10.1994 reveals that neither the Petitioner has applied for any medical leave nor submitted any application for leave. In case he was sick, he should have furnished the medical certificate alongwith application for leave. It is evident from the material placed on record by the Respondent-State that the Petitioner has remained absent without leave and the department had been calling upon him either to join his duties or to apply for leave, duly supported by medical certificate. Petitioner has failed to prove that he was present on the dates, for which he is claiming his wages.

It will also be apt at this stage to take note of the earlier Original Application bearing No. 238 of 1994, preferred by the Petitioner before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal with a direction to the Respondents to release the wages to the Petitioner as found due and admissible. It has come on record vide Annexure RA-11 that the Petitioner has already been paid his wages for the period he has worked with the Respondent-department.

Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.