Delhi High Court - Orders
Ritu Ravi Prakash vs Union Of India on 3 February, 2022
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15193/2021 & CM Nos. 47854/2021, 47855/2021
RITU RAVI PRAKASH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajesh Katyal, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA ......Respondent
Through: Mr Ranvir Singh, CGSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
ORDER
% 03.02.2022 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
1. The principal grievance articulated on behalf of the petitioner is that the Child Care Leave (CCL) due to the petitioner was wrongly denied.
2. According to Mr Rajesh Katyal, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner had applied for taking leave to prepare her daughter not only for her Class 11th examination but also for ensuing Class 12th Board examination as well.
2.1 It is also Mr Katyal's submission that the reason proffered for denying the leave, that is, shortage of staff, is incorrect. According to Mr Katyal, at the relevant point of time, there was surplus staff in the concerned department.
3. We have looked at the record and the assertions made in the writ petition.
4. We are, prima facie, of the view that, even if one were to accept all that Mr Katyal has submitted before us, which is, that given the circumstances in which the petitioner was placed, she ought to have been granted CCL, and that there was, in fact, no shortage of staff as claimed by W.P.(C) 15193/2021 page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:07.02.2022 22:39:28 the respondent, we are not able to persuade ourselves that the petitioner's conduct in sitting at home and taking leave, which was not sanctioned, can be condoned.
4.1. Mr Katyal does not dispute the fact that the petitioner did not take recourse to appropriate legal remedy i.e., escalate the matter either before the Central Administrative Tribunal or this Court, to agitate her claim that CCL ought to have been granted to her.
4.2. To be noted, although the Inquiry Officer (IO) exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against her, the disciplinary authority entered a disagreement note qua the report of the IO. 4.3. The disciplinary authority, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner (to represent her case), passed the order dated 23.09.2019, whereby the petitioner was visited with penalty involving "reduction of pay by 2 (two) stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 (three) years with further directions that she will not earn increments of her pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have effect of postponing the future increments of her pay".
5. Mr Katyal will revert with instructions in the matter.
6. List the matter on 31.03.2022.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TALWANT SINGH, J FEBRUARY 3, 2022 nk Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 15193/2021 page 2 of 2 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:07.02.2022 22:39:28