G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THE unsuccessful Plaintiff has come up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial judge whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he be deemed to be in service of the Respondent holding the post of a clerk in the cadre and it (the post) be not declared vacant with effect from 8th December, 1973, was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts: The Plaintiff/Appellant was appointed as a clerk in the Haryana Agricultural University on June 19, 1967; he successfully completed his probationary period on August 18, 1969, he was promoted as an accountant on November 16, 1971 in the department of Chemistry and Bio -Chemistry; he was reverted to his original post of clerk on June 19, 1973 and was transferred to the department of Plant Breeding which he joined on September 22, 1973; he proceeded on leave without pay with effect from October 11, 1973 to December 7, 1973; during this period, he fell ill and applied for leave on medical grounds from December 8, 1973 for a month, he was informed, - -vide letter dated March 29, 1974 by the head of the Plant Breeding Department that his leave case would be decided after the receipt of the last pay certificate. He went to join his duty on August 6, 1974 but was not allowed to join on the ground that his post was declared vacant. His services were terminated with retrospective effect from January 2, 1974. The Plaintiff contends that the order of termination by declaring his post vacant was passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing and it violated the principles of natural justice. The Respondent/Defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint and inter alia pleaded that the Plaintiff did not apply for leave before the expiry of leave period. The post held by him was declared vacant with effect from December 8,1973 because he failed to join his duties after the expiry of the leave period. His application for extension of leave dated September 11, 1974 was rejected on merits.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. (2) Whether the order of H.A.U. dated 2nd January, 1974 declaring the post of the Plaintiff as vacant is illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice? OPP (3) Whether the suit is not within the period of limitation? OPD (4) Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP (5) Relief.;