Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And Others vs Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta And Another on 2 January, 2020
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 47854 of 2008 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And Others Respondent :- Dr. Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- D.P. Mishra, C.S.C., P.K.Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Rajendra Pd. Mishra, C.B. Yadav, Chandan Sharma, Nisheeth Yadav, P.K. Shukla, Pankaj Shukla, S.C., Vinod Kr. Pandey, Nseeth Yadav Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.
1. Heard Smt. Subhash Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri C. B. Yadav, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by State of U.P. assailing judgment and order dated 24.04.2007 (Annexure-23 of the writ petition) passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') allowing Claim Petition No.1168 of 2004 whereby Tribunal has set aside the order dated 11.06.2004 whereby petitioners declared period of absence from 20.10.1985 to 19.07.2002 of respondent, Dr.(Smt.) Sneh Lata Gupta, as break in service, for the reason that it was proved from record that respondent submitted her joining, but she was not allowed to join by concerned Authorities of Department, therefore, she could not join and work for the said period.
3. That being so, fault was on the part of authorities of department for which Departmental Authorities sought to punish claimant-respondent and this has been condemned by Tribunal and order impugned in claim petition has been set aside.
4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, when questioned, could not dispute that as per enquiry conducted by department it was found that claimant-respondent actually submitted her joining report, but Departmental Authorities did not allow her to join. It is also admitted that for the earlier period of absence from 24.10.1984 to 03.09.1985 and from 15.10.1985 to 16.01.1986, claimant-respondent has submitted various leave applications but they were not disposed of at all and in these circumstances, order treating period of absence of claimant-respondent as break in service, was not justified and illegal.
5. Before us, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute above facts and also could not show any error in the judgment and order of Tribunal, warranting any interference.
6. Writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.
7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date : 02.01.2020 Manish Himwan