http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JIT SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)698

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the Order of the High  Court of Punjab & Haryana made on march 9, 1994 in R.S.A. No.114/93.  The respondent  a word  charged employee, had gone  on leave  from April  10, 1986.  His  service  was terminated due  to his  overstay  without  due  sanction  of leave. A  letter dated September 3. 1986 was communicated to him wherein it was stated that 10 days’ time from August 25, 1986 was  given to  him to report for duty failing which his services "may  be considered to have been terminate from the date of  his absence  and he  may  be  informed  accordingly through a  registered letter".  In furtherance  thereof, the letter of  termination was  addressed to  the respondent. He filed the suit questioning  the said letter.      Two contentions  have been  raised by  the  respondent, viz., that  the was a civil servant and that he was entitled to an enquiry before termination of his service and since it was not  done the  order was invalid. He also stated that he had gone  on leave  with permission  of the  authorities and that, therefore,  it cannot be said that he absented without authority of  absence. We find that both the contentions are untenable.      The Punjab Public Works Department Code would  indicate that the  Code would apply to the Work-charged Establishment of  the   Public  Works   Department,  Roads   and  Building Department.  The   respondent  was   working  in  Irrigation Department.  Rule  1.132  indicates  that  a    work-charged employee is  not entitled  to any pension, leave, travelling allowance etc.  He is liable to be terminated under the Code by giving  10 days’  notice as  it required in clause [7] of Rule 1.129  of the  Code.   Under these circumstances, it is clear that  the respondent  is  not  a  Government  servant. Unless his  services are regularised in accordance with law, his   services remain  to be  of a work-charged employee. He was  terminated  in  accordance  with  the  above  procedure

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

prescribed thereunder.      It would  be seen that from May 1986 to August 19, 1986 the respondent remained absent. from duty without any proper sanction of  the competent  authority or grant of leave. The courts have  proceeded on  the premise that he was absent on leave for  a short period of 10 days. In fact, it is not so. The circumstances  indicate that  the courts  below have not applied their minds in correct perspective, to the legal and factual aspects.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  suit  of  the respondent  stands  dismissed,  but  in  the  circumstances, without costs.