RADHEY SHYAM MISHRA vs UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 21st May, 2026 + W.P.(C) 2713/2024 RADHEY SHYAM MISHRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Imran Ali, Ms. Aanchal Bumb, Mr. M.Z Khan, Advocates. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Ms. Saniya Zehra, Advocates for R-3 & 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral): 1. The Petitioner, Radhey Shyam Mishra, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking setting aside of the order dated 3rd July, 2002, whereby his services in Mata Sundri College for Women were brought to an end. He also assails the subsequent rejection of his representation dated 29th November, 2022, which was submitted pursuant to the order dated 16th November, 2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 19812/2004. Since the Petitioner has admittedly crossed the age of superannuation, the relief of reinstatement survives only in a notional sense. The real contest now concerns continuity of service, back wages and consequential retiral benefits. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2713/2024 Page 1 of 24 By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:25.05.2026 19:55:03 2. The case turns on a decisive distinction: absence from duty is not, by itself, abandonment of service. The College invokes the rule which treats an employee as having absconded where he remains absent without prior permission for a continuous period of 90 days. The Petitioner answers that he had not walked away from service. His case is that he was suffering from mental illness, that his wife had kept the College informed of his condition, and that the College itself corresponded with her on that basis. The submission, therefore, is that the College c