V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER 's husband had been performing and discharging duties as constable in P.A.C. Petitioner's husband while he was posted in 36 Battalion PAC he was sent for election duty to Pakhur Bihar and while petitioner's husband was on election duty he disappear­ed and is not traceable till today. On 16.3.2000. First Information Report was lodged regarding disappearance of the petitioner's husband. On 12.4.2000, when husband of the petitioner was not traced out then petitioner preferred Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 32409 of 2000, wherein plea was taken in the counter-affidavit that respondents have been unable to trace out the petitioner's husband. Petitioner as she was under financial constraint approached the authorities concerned for financial assistance as provided under Government Order dated 20.3.1987. Thereafter on 23.3.2004 husband of the petitioner has been suspended in absentia. Petitioner has been informed thereafter by the authority concerned that inquiry is being made qua absconding of husband of the petitioner. Show cause notice was issued on 10.7.2004 for showing cause as to why services of the husband of the petitioner be not terminated. On 28.7.2004 an order has been passed treating the period starting with effect from 16.2.2000 till 28.7.2004 as leave without pay and simultaneously services of husband of the petitioner has been terminated. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the termination order as well as for extending the benefit as envisaged under the Government Order dated 20.3.1987. Counter-affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that petitioner's husband has left without any application for leave as such he has been treated absent from duty and whereabouts of husband of the petitioner is unknown and he cannot be presumed to be dead, unless the period of seven years is elapsed. Petitioner has not complied with the requirement of the Government Order dated 20.3.1987, as such benefit of the said Government Order could not be provided. In this background it has been prayed that writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(2.) TO this counter-affidavit rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein statement of fact mentioned in the counter-affidavit has been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) SRI Amit Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case in all eventuality petitioner was entitled for benefit of Government Order dated 20.3.1987 and instead of tracing out the husband of the petitioner quite illegally by treating absent his services has been terminated which is unjustifiable where as for the said period, leave has been sanctioned as such writ petition deserves to be allowed and prayer made in the writ petition be accorded.;