Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) The petitioner, on 13.02.2007, after receiving the letter as a posting order, has requested the Superintending Engineer PWD, Erode to give a reposting order so as to enable him to report for duty at the Sub-Division and the petitioner was given a posting by letter dated 22.02.2007 by the Superintending Engineer, PWD Building Construction and Maintenance Division, Erode, posting him at Erode and also directed the petitioner to take the reposting order from the Executive Engineer, PWD, Erode. The petitioner received the order on 05.03.2007. In the meanwhile, the petitioner received the order from the Executive Engineer, PWD, Building Construction and Maintenance Division, Erode dated 28.02.2007, posting him as Superintendent, Building Maintenance Sub-Division, Tharapuram, Erode District and directed him to report for duty immediately. The petitioner received the order on 15.03.2007 and reported for duty on 16.03.2007 and made a representation on that date itself requesting that the period in which he was kept on wait for posting from 12.02.2007 to 15.03.2007 as 'compulsory wait' and requested to draw and disburse the salary for the period. According to the petitioner, he was paid monthly salary for 10 days in the month of February 2007 and for the period from 11.02.2007 to 15.03.2007, he was not paid salary and that he was superannuated from service on 31.03.2008.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner's representation dated 15.12.2006 requesting the Executive Engineer, to give posting at Kancheepuram was received by the Executive Engineer, Buildings (Construction & Maintenance) Division, Kancheepuram on 29.12.2006 and that the petitioner has not represented to the respondents for his posting at Kancheepuram, as stated in the affidavit.

3a. It is further stated that the Assistant Executive Engineer, Buildings (Construction & Maintenance) Sub Division, Kancheepuram has nothing to do with the representation of the petitioner, to post him at Kancheepuram. The post, for the period from 13.08.2006 to 11.02.2007 could not be kept vacant for the petitioner in the interest of administration and hence, another Superintendent was posted to that Sub Division. According to the respondents, the petitioner has admitted that he was served with the posting orders on 12.02.2007 with a direction to get reposting from the Superintending Engineer, Buildings (Construction and Maintenance) Circle, Erode. The Superintending Engineer, Erode has issued posting orders on 22.02.2007, which according to the respondents is the normal time taken in administrative office, considering the factors such as the office procedure of putting up office note to the Superintending Engineer (who is a Touring Officer) and intervening Government Holidays. But, the petitioner has stated that he had received the order on 05.03.2007. The Executive Engineer has issued reposting orders on 28.02.2007, whereas the petitioner has stated that he has received the order on 15.03.2007.

3b. It is also stated that the petitioner was not interested to rejoin duty in Dharapuram Buildings Sub Division. The individual, a P.W.D., Superintendent, vested with Administration works or Accounts after putting up 3 decades of service, ought to have been aware of the fact of getting the posting orders/reposting orders from the Officers concerned. It has been stated in Government Letter No.44890/FR III/95-1/dated 28.08.1995 that a Government Servant who desires to join duty on expiry of leave should report in person to the authority concerned. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner should have been aware of this rule position. Ignorance cannot be an excuse. In the instance case, it is seen that on each occasion, the petitioner has lethargically waited for his postings to reach him and not approached the authority concerned within stipulated him. Hence, the reluctance of the petitioner to rejoin duty in Dharapuram has only delayed his joining in the new station. The Department is not responsible for such delay.

3c. According to the respondents, a single genuine representation is enough for consideration and favourable orders. Numerous representations of the petitioner are not valid with reference to rules and delay has been caused in the instant case and it was totally on the part of the petitioner, to make delay wantonly to rejoin duty. The petitioner was served with posting/reposting orders then and there, but he has not approached the authorities to receive the orders in person, within time. The 2nd respondent/Chief Engineer (Buildings) has issued order dated 09.02.2007, i.e. well in advance of his expiry of leave. Thereafter, it is the burden and foremost duty of the petitioner to report for duty by getting the orders properly in person.