SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri W.H. Khan counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.P. Singh learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This writ petition has been filed in the year 1993 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join in the institution as a Class IV employee and also ensure payment of his salary.
(2.) THE writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. However, subsequently, after the respondents put in appearance, the interim order was vacated. By an order dated 18.5.2005, this Court found that the controversy raised between the parties in this writ petition was around an order dated 19.12.1981 which according to the contesting respondents was a forged order and did not entitle the petitioner to claim any benefit out of the same. The petitioner claimed benefit of the said order by saying that the order of termination passed by the Principal was set aside in appeal on 19.12.1981 by the Committee of Management/Authorized Controller. When such a dispute was raised before this Court, the Court required the Joint Director of Education (Vindhyachal Region) to conduct an enquiry/investigation and after giving an opportunity to the parties determine the issue regarding the validity and genuineness of the document (Annexure 7) dated 19.12.1981 and investigate as to whether this document has ever been issued by Sri Basudev Yadav (as he was posted then) on the basis of the appeal filed by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid order, it appears that an enquiry was conducted by the authority and he has filed his report dated 14.11.2005 available along with the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2. The said report indicates that upon the enquiry made by the Joint Director of Education, he has found that the appellate order dated 19.12.1981 was genuine and it bore the signature of Sri Basudev Yadav as he then was and is not a forged document.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the contesting respondents has assailed the said report by filing affidavit wherein he has stated that the Joint Director of Education was required to investigate the matter with respect to genuineness of the order dated 19.12.1981 by going through the records of the appeal and determine as to whether even an appeal was filed since it was the specific stand of the Committee of Management that there were no records of any such appeal before the Committee of Management or even before the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur. The other ground for objection against this report is that the conduct of the petitioner is itself very clear that if an order dated 19.12.1981 has been passed in his favour, he has kept silent for a period of 12 years and has approached the High Court by means of this writ petition in the year 1993 which is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches alone. The further contention of learned counsel for the contesting respondents is that when the said Sri Basudev Yadav had himself in the year 1999 denied that the order dated 19.12.1981 contained his signature, then in the absence of records, how he could have in the year 2000 taken a 'LT Turn to say that after perusal of the records, he found that it was his own signature. For this purpose, he had again stated that when there were no original records available, then which records were seen by Sri Basudev Yadav to say that the order dated 19.12.1981 bore his signature. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents further states that the law laid down by the Courts is quite clear that when an employee absconds from service for a long period of time, it would amount to abandonment of service. For the said purpose, he has placed reliance on a decision in 2004 (1) UPLBEC 177, Dawan Singh v. State of U.P. and others and in 1999 (3) UPLBEC 2098, Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. Labour Court U.P. at Meerut and others. He also submits that the latches in approaching this Court is quite apparent from the filing of the writ petition after 12 years of the alleged order dated 19.12.1981 passed in favour of the petitioner and therefore in view of the decisions in 2005 (5) AWC 5143, Ram Veer Singh v. State of U.P. and others; 2005 (4) SCC 546, Cheripalli Madarv. Assistant Divisional Engineers and others; 2001 (10) SCC 537, Y. Ramamohan and others v. Government of India and others; and AIR 1976 SC 2617, State of Orissa v. Sri Pyarimohan Samantaray and others, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.;