Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kailash Chand Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 26 July, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI RA No.125/2015 in OA No.1570/14 MA No.1617/15 Order reserved on 22.07.2016 Order pronounced on 26.07.2016 Hon'ble Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Hon'ble Shri Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J) Shri Kailash Chander Verma S/o Shri Badri Prasad R/o C-94/F-3, Ramprashtha P.O. Chander Nagar Distt.-Ghaziabad (U.P.) ....Applicant (Through Advocate: Shri K C Dubey) Versus
1. Delhi Transport Corpn.
I.P. Estate New Delhi-110002 Through its Chairman.
2. Depot Manager Seemapuri Depot Delhi-110093. ....Respondents (Through Advocate: Ms. Manisha Tyagi) Order Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) This Review Application has been filed for review of our Order dated 28.11.2014, the operative part of which, reads as follows:-
"3. The relief sought by the applicant is related to alternative employment, which has since been granted to him, as well as payment of salary, which has been clarified by the learned counsel for the respondents and so stated in paragraph 5 of the 2 RA 125/15 in OA 1570/14 respondent's additional affidavit to the effect that the applicant is getting salary as per Rules, and HRA payable up to the period of eight months has been paid as per details in Annexure R-2 of the counter reply.
4. In view of above, this OA has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed."
2. Learned counsel for the Review Applicant has submitted that although the respondents stated before this Tribunal that salary was being paid to the applicant as per rules, actually he has not been paid any salary for the relevant period from December, 2013 to November, 2014.
3. Opposing this RA, learned counsel for the respondent argued that as per the laid down procedure in the corporation, if an employee is given medical rest by DTC Medical Board, then he is sanctioned leave of the kind due to him and given basic salary as well as DA for the leave period. In the instant case, no leave was due in the account of the applicant. Hence, he has been granted leave without pay since December, 2013. However, the HRA, payable to him, for the period in question, has been granted.
4. Learned counsel for the review applicant has stated that the respondents have not mentioned the rules under which they have passed these orders.
5. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. In our opinion, no error, apparent on the face of record has been pointed out by the review applicant. Merely because the 3 RA 125/15 in OA 1570/14 rule applied in the applicant's case has not been mentioned by the respondents, does not constitute a ground for review of our order.
6. Accordingly, this RA is dismissed. No costs.
( Raj Vir Sharma ) ( Shekhar Agarwal ) Member(J) Member(A) /vb/