Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Satish Chandra Gupta vs Hudco Division on 1 April, 2022

                                1
Item No.26                                                  O.A. No. 859/2022



              Central Administrative Tribunal
                  Principal Bench: New Delhi

                         O.A. No.859/2022

                  This the 1st day of April, 2022

       Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
       Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

       Satish Chandra Gupta,
       Aged : 64, Group A
       S/o. Late Shri G. P. Gupta
       R/o. 100A, Sector 4, Vaishali,
       Ghaziabad, U.P.-201 010.
                                                     ...Applicant

       (By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav)


                             Versus


       Housing & Urban Development
       Corporation Ltd., (Hudco)
       Through, The Chairman & Managing Director
       Hudco House, IHC Building, Lodhi Road,
       New Delhi - 110 003.
                                           ...Respondents


                        ORDER (ORAL)

Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):

"A. pass an order directing the Respondents to release the leave encashment due to the applicant along with the interest payable as per law.

B. pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the present of justice in favour of the applicant.''

2. The short question involved in this OA is Leave Encashment which the applicant is claiming.

3. The applicant joined Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., (HUDCO) as Assistant Account Officer-II in the year 1984. On 13.01.1987, the applicant was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer-I. The applicant got all his promotions in different grades and posts, the latest one being to the post of General Manager (Finance) which was in the year 2012.

4. Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 30.10.2012 an inquiry was initiated against the applicant under Rule 23 (2) read with Rule 28 of Hudco Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976. The applicant denied the charges. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. During the course of inquiry, the applicant superannuated on 28.03.2018. The applicant represented the department through 3 Item No.26 O.A. No. 859/2022 various representations for release of his leave encashment, the latest one being dated 31.08.2021, which is still pending consideration. Hence, the present OA.

5. Today, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and dispose of his representation dated 31.08.2021 in a time bound manner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant at the admission stage and perused the pleadings.

7. Keeping in view the limited prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant, we deem it fit and proper to direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 31.08.2021 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of two and a half months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Item No.26 O.A. No. 859/2022

8. With the above direction, the OA stands disposed of. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to the merits of the case.

There shall be no order as to costs.

       (Mohd. Jamshed)                               (Manjula Das)
         Member (A)                                    Chairman



       /Mbt/