Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pankaj vs Govt. Of Nctd on 2 August, 2023
1
Item No.30 (C-5) O.A. No. 1395/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1395/2019
This the 02nd day of August, 2023
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Smt. Pankaj (Age 43 Yrs.)
S/O Sh. Chander Kant
R/O Q.No. 713, 7th Floor,
Gnct, Delhi Employees Complex,
Block No.15, Sector-3, Dwarka, Delhi
T.G.T. (English) (Group-B)(N.G.)
Posted At Govt. Co-Education
Secondary School, Mahavir Enclave,
Delhi-110045 (School Code No. 1821136)
... Applicant
(By Advocate:- Dr. Kanwal Sapra)
Versus
1. The Chief Secretary
Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate, New Delhi
2. The Director Education
Office Of Old Secretary
Civil Lines, Delhi.
3. Regional Director (Education)
(South) , Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi,
C-4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057.
4. Ms. Manju Gupta,
Head Of Office & Vice-Principal,
Govt.Co-Ed.Sec. School,
Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi-110045.
... Respondents
(By Advocate:- Mr. Rohit Bhagat with Mr. Saurabh Chadda)
2
Item No.30 (C-5) O.A. No. 1395/2019
O R D E R (ORAL)
By way of the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i. call for the record of the case;
ii. to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.05.2018 (Annexure-A/1) and order dated 10.09.2018 (Annexure-A/2) vide which the grievances of Applicant for illegal deduction of salary and appeal thereof respectively were rejected by the Respondents.
iii. grant litigation expenses in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents; and iv. pass any other order/direction in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and"
2. In the instant matter, the applicant is seeking refund of amount of Rs.45830/- deducted from her salary on account of commuted leave taken by her w.e.f. 13.11.2017 to 17.11.2017, which was changed to half pay leave on account of private affair with a request to deduct double number of leaves from her account. Subsequently, 5 days HPL was granted to her for the said period. Consequent upon the same, she made several appeals before the concerned authority but the same were turned down. Being aggrieved, 3 Item No.30 (C-5) O.A. No. 1395/2019 she has approached this Tribunal seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to Rule 29 (4) CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 which clarifies as under:-
"4. The leave under this rule may be granted on medical certificate or on private affairs."
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the impugned order dated 19.05.2018 wherein it is stated as under:
"Hence, the Committee after thorough discussion and after reading the relevant provisions of CCS Leave Rules, 1972, as mentioned above, has come to the conclusion that the recovery made by HOS/DDO from the salary of the concerned official on account of leave on half pay for the period from 13.11.17 to 17.11.17 (5 days)is justified as per CCS Leave Rules, 1972.AS,there is no provision in CCS Leave Rules, 1972,to grant commuted leave without production of medical certificate and also there is no provision to grant HPL on private affairs and deduct double amount of HPL from the leave account as requested by Smt. Pankaj. The Committee has found no infirmity in the order passed by the District Level Grievance Committee. Hence, the appeal filed before the Committee stands disposed of."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention to RTI replies annexed at Page Nos.84, 93, 94 & 96, which state that HPLs were also granted to the other 4 Item No.30 (C-5) O.A. No. 1395/2019 employees but no recoveries were made from them and submits that this is a discrimination against the applicant.
6. Having gone through the pleadings and arguments made by both the counsel, the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 clarify that HPLs are provided on medical grounds as well on private affairs but there is no provision in the said rule to grant commuted leave without production of medical certificate. The only difference between the nature of these leaves is that on medical ground, the half pay leaves may be commuted by exhausting double the amount of half pay leaves and where no medical certificate is produced, no commutation provision is prevailing therein. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
7. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the OA is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) Member (A) /yaksh/