Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanchareshwar Madhavrao Kadam, a Junior Clerk on the establishment of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 in representation dated 07-07-2016 and appeal dated 07-01-2017. The petitioner sought quashing of those orders and condonation of the break in service with directions to protect his pay retrospectively. The facts reveal that the petitioner initially joined service as a junior clerk on 05.10.2010 at Degloor, Dist. Nanded. In 2013, a recruitment process was initiated across Maharashtra. The petitioner applied and was selected, but due to personal reasons, he did not join the transferred place within the stipulated time, resulting in a break in service. The respondents treated this as voluntary abandonment and rejected his representation and appeal. The court considered the submissions of both sides. The petitioner argued that the break was technical and not intentional, while the respondents contended that the petitioner failed to join within time. The court analyzed the circumstances and held that the break was technical and not voluntary abandonment. The court directed the respondents to condone the break in service and protect the petitioner's pay retrospectively. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Condonation of Break in Service - Technical Break - Petitioner, a Junior Clerk, joined service on 05.10.2010 but did not join at transferred place within time due to personal reasons, resulting in a break - Court held that the break was technical and not voluntary abandonment, and directed condonation of break and protection of pay retrospectively - Held that the respondents should condone the break and protect pay (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the break in service of the petitioner due to non-joining at the transferred place within the stipulated time should be condoned and whether the petitioner is entitled to protection of pay retrospectively.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 in representation dated 07-07-2016 and appeal dated 07-01-2017 are quashed and set aside. The break in service of the petitioner is condoned and the respondents are directed to protect the pay of the petitioner retrospectively. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of break in service
- Technical break
- Voluntary abandonment
- Service rules
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
