- (1.) The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 17 December 2015, dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. The relief which the appellant sought, apart from challenging the departmental orders denying his claim of retiral dues, was a mandamus for the payment of arrears of salary, pensionary benefits, gratuity and general provident fund by calculating it upto the date of his superannuation on 31 July 1993. Interest was also claimed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant was habitual in remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly and his absence would be treated as an abandonment of service. The petition has, accordingly, been dismissed.
(2.) The appellant was appointed on 14 October 1961 on a substantive basis on the post of Village Level Worker (now re-designated as Gram Vikas Adhikari). He was confirmed in service on 16 February 1972. The case of the appellant is that in September 1979, when he was posted at development block Bhathat in district Gorakhpur, he proceeded on four days casual leave by submitting an application on 21 September 1979. The appellant was diagnosed as a chronic patient of Tuberculosis and, according to him, he had informed the Block Development Officer about his illness. The appellant claims to have undergone a prolonged treatment and upon being declared fit to resume his duties, submitted his joining report on 25 September 1984 together with a fitness certificate to the Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur. However, the Chief Development Officer, on the ground that the appellant had remained absent for a period of five years and four days, did not accept his joining report and referred the matter on 26 November 1984 to the Commissioner, Rural Development. The appellant was not allowed to resume his duties and eventually attained the age of superannuation on 31 July 1993. After his retirement, the appellant submitted representations on 24 August 1993 to the Chief Development Officer and thereafter on 12 November 1997, 2 December 1999 and 5 May 2001. The representation of 5 May 2001 is stated to have been referred by the Under Secretary to the Commissioner. On 20 January 2000, the case of the appellant for the release of his retiral dues was referred by the Chief Development Officer, Gorakhpur to the Commissioner, Rural Development. On 26 February 2000, a communication was addressed by the Chief Development Officer to the Block Development Officer in regard to the release of the amounts standing to the credit of the appellant in his GPF account in accordance with the rules. On 2 May 2000, the Chief Development Officer addressed a letter to the Additional Commissioner (Administration). A lengthy correspondence ensued with the appellant addressing representations again on 20 June 2001 and 16 March 2006. On 12 November 2001, the Additional Commissioner (Administration) addressed a communication to the State Government through the Principal Secretary, seeking a clarification in regard to the reference which was made to the State Government. In this background, the appellant filed a writ petition in 2006 (Writ Petition No.4782 (S/S) of 2006) seeking a decision on the reference which was made in regard to the terminal dues of the appellant and for a decision on the representations submitted by the appellant. The writ petition was eventually withdrawn on 21 May 2012 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
(3.) On 18 May 2012, the Principal Secretary addressed a communication to the Commissioner, Rural Development, directing that steps be taken in accordance with law and, if any dues were payable to the appellant, that may be paid or a reasoned order may be issued. On 19 May 2012, the District Development Officer, Gorakhpur passed an order rejecting the claim of the appellant. The order records that on 15 March 1985, the Chief Development Officer had informed the appellant that he was not being permitted to join as a result of his being on unauthorized absent and on account of the abandonment of service. No pensionary benefits would be granted. However, it was stated that on the principle of 'no work no pay', no salary was payable to the appellant. The appellant challenged this order in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge. By a judgment and order dated 17 December 2015, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.;