Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Anjali Yadav vs Home Affairs on 7 April, 2025
Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3511/ 2022
Reservedon:12.03.2025
Pronounced on:07.04.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. Dr.AnjaliYadav,Aged-41Years,W/oWing
41Years,W/oWing
Commander Sh. Ashwani Prakash Yadav,
Working as Senior Scientific Officer
Officer-I in CFSL
(CBI), New Delhi Resident of 117A, New
Colony, Gurugram At present OMQ
OMQ-11, Air
Force Station, Srinagar, Budgaon (J.K.). 190015.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through The Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India,
North Block, New Delhi. 110001.
2. The Director, Central Forensic Science
Laboratory, Central Bureau of
Investigation, Kendriya Karyalaya Parisar,
Block No.4, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Delhi-
110003.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R S Rana)
Page 1of 19
Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned orders order dated 01.06.2022, 28.06.2022 and 22.11.2022 declaring to the effect that the same are illegal and arbitrary and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to grant the extra ordinary leave to the applicant upto Aug. 2023 or any other ther period after taking the second medical opinion of the competent medical authorities.
(ii)Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, le learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a Senior Scientific Officer in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Laboratory of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
nvestigation. The applicant is aggrieved that her request for sanction of Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 01.06.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant requested for adjudication upon the prayer for interim relief which reads as under:
"The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of restraining the respondents to take any disciplinary action against the applicant in compliance of the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 till the final disposal of the main O.A."
Page 2of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 2.1. It is not in dispute that the applicant went on maternity leave during the year 2020 and after giving birth to a son, joined the duties on 12.05.2022. However, learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to a serious ailment ailment the applicant's new born son is suffering, she had to take leave for his treatment and the doctors had opined that it may take nearly an year for the child to recover. He submits that the husband of the applicant is an officer of the Indian Air Force wh who is posted at Srinagar and it is not possible for him, considering the onerous nature of his responsibility to take long leave for the treatment of the child. He further submits that her situation is extra ordinary and it is essential for her to remain on leave for some time to save the life and future of the child. It is in the background of these circumstances that she applied for Extra Ordinary Leave and has been seeking its extension till her child is cured. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that that the entire purpose of EOL as clearly evident from the provisions of Rule 12 of CCS CCA Rules, 1972, is that such leave is granted up to 5 years in exceptional circumstances and there could be no more serious exceptional circumstances than the ailment of a minor child and further, there could be no greater responsibility for a mother than to tend and care for the ailing child by providing motherly nursing care.
2.2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that vide order of this Tribunal dated 09.12.2022 09.12.2022 an interim order was passed, which reads as under:
Page 3of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 "In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in allowing the prayer for interim relief as sought for in the present O.A. with a categorical direction to the respondents that they shall not take any coercive action, including disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in pursuance to their order dated 01.06.2022 impugned in this O.A. till the O.A. is decided by this Tribunal."
2.3. A query was put to the applicant' counsel during the cour course of the hearing that when did the applicant resume her duties during the pendency of the present O.A. He has clarified that the applicant has been working since 02.11.2023. It has been further averred by the learned counsel for the applicant that vide im impugned order, the respondents have rejected the prayer of the applicant for grant of Extra EOL for another six months. In support of his arguments, he drew attention to the relevant rules and instructions in this regard. He further submits that this is not in dispute that the minor child of the applicant, aged one year, year was suffering from some major ailment. Moreover, her husband was posted at Srinagar in a sensitive place on the roll of Indian Air Force. He argues that for all all these circumstances, the EOL was sought by the applicant. He further argues that pursuant to the aforementioned interim order passed by this Tribunal, the applicant re re-
joined the duty on 02.11.2023 and the main question arises at this stage is what would would be the treatment to be given to the applicant pursuant to the said interim order.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. He submits that the applicant is guilty of misrepresenting the facts and of supprescio veri and exprescio falsi to the extent that the applicant has Page 4of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 completely misconceived and suppressed true & material facts in the present petition and as such has approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands hand in order to obtain the relief claimed for in the petition and thus the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He further submits that the Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFSS), under the Mi Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, was bifurcated from the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) vide Resolution No. 25011/41/2001 GPA.II/PM.II 25011/41/2001-GPA.II/PM.II dated 31.12.2002 and thereafter renamed as the Directorate of Forensic Science Services (D (DFSS) vide Resolution No.25020/50/2010-PM-II dated 29th November 2010. The Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFSS) is the nodal agency of the Government of India for propagation of forensic science services in the country. He further submits that MH MHA vide order No.25013/25/2019 No.25013/25/2019-WS-III III dated 18.11.2022 (Annexed R R-5) has transferred administrative control of CFSL (CBI) to Directorate of Forensic Science Services and has also changed its nomenclature as "CFSL, Delhi". Thus, CFSL is no more under the adm administrative control of CBI.
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there are Seven Central Forensic Science Laboratories (CFSLs) under the DFSS, located at Chandigarh, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Pune, Bhopal, Kamrup Assam and New Delhi which are catering to the scientific needs of various investigating agencies throughout the country, such Page 5of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 as CBI, Enforcement Directorate, Central/State Ministries/Departments, States Police Departments, PSUs, Banks, High Courts/Lower Courts etc., for forensic examination of crime crime-
exhibits in various disciplines of Forensic Science, viz. Physical, Chemical, Narcotics, Biology, DNA, Explosive, Toxicology, Document, Computer Forensic, Audio-Video Audio Video authentication etc. The charter of duties dutie of the DFSS inter-alia alia include providing high quality and on-time time forensic science services to the criminal justice delivery system by creating capacity and capability at the central level and providing technical and financial support and assistance to fforensic institutions in the States and Union Territories, the DFSS has been entrusted the responsibility to develop new technologies and create new scientific knowledge to assist the criminal justice delivery system. It is responsible to undertake research & development in various areas of forensic science and strengthen the forensic Services. This Directorate has been established to create linkages with national and international scientific, technical and forensic institutions and universities for cooperation cooperation through transfer of technology, skill development, exchange of scientific personnel and sharing of information. The applicant informed the office that she had her second child on 14.10.2020 vide her intimation which was received in the office on 20.10.2020 20.10.2020 and applied for maternity leave for six months with effect from 12.10.2020 vide her application received in the office on 22.10.2020. He submitted that the CFSL, New Delhi sanctioned the Page 6of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 maternity leave applied for a period of six month with effect from 12.10.2020 to 09.04.2021 vide office order no. 198/2020 dated 27.10.2020. The applicant was offered in in-situ promotion to the grade of Sr. Scientific Officer Grade-I(Group-
Grade -A) in the pay level 11 under the FCS scheme with effect from 10.11.2020 vide offi office order no.
210/2020 dated 18.11.2020. He further submitted that the applicant resumed her duties in the CFSL, New Delhi w.e.f. 12.05.2021(F/N) after availing maternity leave from 12.10.2020 to 09.04.2021 and EOL from 10.04.2021 to 11.05.2021. She was als also allowed in-situ promotion to the grade of Senior Scientific Officer Grade Grade-I by the Department w.e.f 12.05.2021. The applicant, vide her ee-mail dated 08.10.2021, applied for EOL w.e.f from 23.08.2021 to 22.08.2022 for one year on following grounds:-
grounds:
A) My mental health is failing for which I have been given bed rest.
B) I also have two children (l infant & 1 toddler) to look after even in my failing health. And due to prevailing pandemic in the country there is no facility of school, crèche or day care ava available to me. So in my absence I have nobody to look after my children.
C) My spouse is posted in country insurgency field area and not available to support me.
D) Also, I am dependent on my spouse for medical facilities. So, I have to join him at his place of posting for availing suitable medical care and support. I wish to avail EOL as stated above also, since being on bed rest from 18.08.2021 (medical certificate has been submitted). I am unable to attend physically and give leave in writing. Also, since I hhave beeninformed today regarding leave not due not admissible I wish to apply for EOL from the previous date that is 23.08.2021 for one year.
3.2. He further submitted that the Director CFSL, New Delhi vide sanction order no. 742/2021 dated 18.10.2021 sanction sanctioned six months extra ordinary leave w.e.f. 23.08.2021 to 22.02.2022 to the applicant as Page 7of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 requested by her. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant is holding Group 'A' post in L-11 L 11 of the pay matrix and hence is expected her conduct impeccable. However,, after sanction of EOL, she kept herself absent from office after 22.2.2022. The applicant vide her ee- mail dated 20.01.2022 requested to extend her leave for another six months for the following reasons.
a) My health is failing for which I have been advised to avoid long sitting and standing positing continuously. I am going for physiotherapy daily basis. Latest consultation over telephone (due to pandemic and also could not travel to Gurgaon being covid positive) prescription is attached for your reference. Covid may health even worst.
b) I also have two children (l infant & 1 toddler) to look after even in my failing health. And due to prevailing pandemic in the country there is no facility of school, crèche or day care available to me. So in my absence I have nobody to look after my children.
c) Myspouseispostedincounterinsurgencyfieldareaandnotavailableto support me.
d) Also, I am dependent on my spouse for medical facilities. So, I have to join him at his place of posting for availing suitabl suitable medical care and support. I am getting physiotherapy and all medications here in his station. 3.3. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that Rule No. 32 related to grant of extra ordinary leave incorporated in the CCS(Leave) Rules stipulated that Extraordinary leave may be granted to a Government servant (other than a military officer) in special circumstances circumstances-
(a) when no other leave is admissible:
(b) when other leave is admissible, but the Government servant applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave. (2) Unless the President in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case otherwise otherwise determines, no Government servant, who is not inpermanent employ or quasi-permanent quasi permanent employ, shall be granted extraordinary leave on any one occasion in excess of the following limits:
limits:-
Page 8of 19
Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022
(a) three months;
(b) six months where the Government se servant has completed one year's continuous service on the date of expiry of leave of the kind due and admissible under these rules, including three months' extraordinary leave under Clause (a) and his request for such leave is supported by a medical certifi certificate as required by these rules:
(c) Deleted.
(d) Eighteen E months, where the Government servant who has completed one year's continuous service is undergoing treatment for (i) Pulmonary Tuberculosis or Pleurisy of tubercular origin, in a recognized sanatorium;
3.4. He further submitted that Rule 25 of the CCS (Leave) Rules1972 stated that willful wil ful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. Governmen Government of India decisions also exist that a Government Servant wh who remains absent without any authority should be proceeded against immediately and this should not be put off till the absence exceeds the limit prescribed in Rule 32(2)(a) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. The applicant is a temporary employee of CFSL, Delhi.
Delhi. She was, therefore, entitled for grant of three months Extra Ordinary Leaves in accordance with sub sub-
para (2) (a) of Rule 32 of CCS Leave Rules as detailed in the preceding para. The Competent Authority after considering the request dated 20.01.2022 of the applicant, in accordance with the Rule No. 32 of the CCS (Leave) Rules didn't sanction the EOL for further six months w.e.f. 23.02.2022 and intimated the applicant vide their order dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure R-4) R 4) that her extension of EOL for a period of six more months has not been sanctioned and that she has to report for duties with immediate effect. The applicant vide her ee-mail dated 02.06.2022 (AnnexureR-2) again requested to extend her EOL Page 9of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 up to 22.08.2023 citing the reason that he her son is affected with 'Breath Holding Spell'. Applicant therefore wanted to avail two year years continuous EOL in one spell, whereas she is entitled for grant of 3 months EOL being a temporary employee. It is is, however, a fact that the Applicant even did not resume her duties even after the expiry of two years, years i.e. on 23.08.2023. The Head of Office of CFSL Delhi vide their order dated 28.06.2022 intimated the applicant that competent authority had already denied extension extension of the requested EOL up to 22.08.2022 vide their letter dated 01.06.2022. Further, the competent authority has also not sanctioned the extension of EOL up to one year i.e. up to August 2023. Applicant was also directed to report for duties with immediate immediate effect otherwise the absence will be treated as unauthorized absence subject to disciplinary action as per rule. It is further contended that only after the denials of EOL vide order dated 01.06.2022, the Applicant raised the issue of her son's health condition.
ndition. According to the applicant,, her second son was born on 14.10.2020 and she raised the child's health issue as the reason for the extension of EOL only after 02.06.2022 i.e. after a lapse of more than one year seven months. The Director CFSL Delhi vvide their order dated 22.11.2022 informed the applicant that the competent authority has not acceded to her request and also directed to join her duties failing which departmental action as per rule will be taken against her for unauthorized absence and indiscipline.
indiscipline. The applicant filed the O.A. No.3511/2022 in the Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi for seeking the relief Page 10of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 for quashing the impugned order dated 01.06.2022, 28.06.2022 and 22.11.2022 which she did not comply. The applicant at her convenience has joined her duties in the CFSL, Delhi only on 02.11.2023 whereas she was sanctioned EOL up up-to 22.02.2022 by the competent authority. Applicant therefore remained on unauthorised absence with effect from 23.02.2022 to 01.11.2023 01.11.2023, i.e. for a total period of 1 years, 8 months and 22 days on the grounds of her health issues and her son illness. However she failed to produce any medical certificate from the competent authority in support of her claim. The applicant is an incumbent of Group-A Group A post in Level Level-11 of the Pay Matrix. As such, such she is expected to maintain her conduct in accordance with the instructions contained in CCS (Conduct) Rules. Applicant might be aware that leave is not a matter of right and is further subject to fulfillment of rule position and due formalities in this regard. Denial of EOL made conveyed to the applicant in the administrative capacity in accordance with the rule position and not otherwise as has been alleged by the applicant.
3.5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argue argued that the applicant has a history of availing various leaves since joining. He further submits that the applicant was on leave for a period of 2041 days against her service tenure of 3696, days which indicates 55% of absence. For the sake of better appreciation, appreciation, the details of the leaves availed by the applicant since joining, i.e.,18.09.2023 to 31.10.2023 is as under:
Page 11of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 S.No. Type of leave During the period No.ofdaysleave availed
1. Maternity Leave 03.11.2016 to 01.05.2017 180
2. Child Care Leave 03.05.2017 to 04.05.2018 365 05.05.2018 to 05.05.2019 365
3. Earned Leave During different periods 84
4. Maternity Leave 12.10.2020 to 09.04.2021 180 5. Commuted Leave 39
6. ExtraOrdinaryLeave(upto 10.04.2021 to 11.05.2021 32 22.02.2022) 23.08.2021 to 22.02.2022 180 Total days leave availed 1425 Unauthorized absence from 23.02.2022 to 31.10.2023 616 Leaves and unauthorized absence 2041 Number of days starting from the date of joining to 31.10.2023 3696 Percentage of absence 55% 3.6. It has been further contended that the applicant has applied for EOL on 5thApril 2016 for the leave starting from 03.05.2016 and without getting written order/approval from the office office, she proceeded on leave. He further submitted that the applicant did not join her duties in spite of refusal of EOL by the competent authority. She was also conveyed that such conduct may render her liable for disciplinary action as per Rule. Till date no charge ssheet has been issued to the applicant and in her presumed anticipation anticipation, she has approached the Hon'ble CAT for quashing the order dated 01.06.2022, 28.06.2022 and 22.11.2022.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments argument put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is governed by CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and under Rule 12 there is a provision to grant any kind of leave up to 5 years in exceptional circumstances, meaning thereby thereby, after considering the circumstances and medical conditions, conditions the competent authority can Page 12of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 Grant the leave up to five years and therefore, not considering the request of the applicant is totally illegal and agains against the rules.
5. Heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the records of the case.
6. ANALYSIS 6.1 It is not in dispute that an extraordinary leave is one kind of leave to which an employee is entitled to. 6.2 Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, relevant for the present purpose is re-produced re produced herein below:
"Maximum amount of continuous leave (DOPT Notification No.No.13026/2/2010 Estt.(L), dated 29.03.2012) No.No.13026/2/2010-Estt.(L), (1) No Government servant shall be granted leave of any kind for a cont continuous period exceeding five years (2) Unless the President, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise determines, a Government servant who remains absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years of her tha non foreign service, with or without leave, shall be deemed to have resigned from the Government service:
Provided that a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for such absence shall be given to that Government servant before provisions of sub--rule (2) are invoked.
Provided that this rule shall not apply to a case where leave is applied on medical certificate, in connection with a disability. (DOPT Notification No. 18017/1/2014 Estt. (L), dated 03.04.2018) 18017/1/2014- 03.04.2018).
6.3. Rule 17 contemplates that Leave not to be granted in certain circumstances - Leave shall not be granted to a Government servant whom a competent punishing authority has decided to dismiss, remove or compulsorily retire from Government service.
Page 13of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 6.4 It has been vehemently argued that Rule 25 of the CCS (Leave) Rules 1972 stated that willful wil ful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. Government of India decisions also exists that a Government Se Servant who remains absent without any authority should be proceeded against immediately and this should not be put off till the absence exceeds the limit prescribed in Rule 32(2) (a) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. The applicant is a temporary employee of CFSL, Delhi. She was, therefore, entitled for grant of three months Extra Ordinary Leaves in accordance with sub-para sub para (2) (a) of Rule 32 of CCS Leave Rules as detailed in the preceding para. The Competent Authority after considering the request dated 20.01 20.01.2022 of the applicant in accordance with the Rule 32 of the CCS (Leave) Rules didn't sanction the EOL for further six months w.e.f. 23.02.2022 and intimated the applicant vide their order dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure R R-4) that her extension of EOL for a period period of six more months has not been sanctioned and that she has to report for duties with immediate effect. The applicant vide her e-mail e mail dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure R R-2) again requested to extend her EOL up to 22.08.2023 citing the reason that her son is affected affected with 'Breath Holding Spell'. Applicant therefore wanted to avail two year continuous EOL in one spell, whereas she is entitled for grant of 3 months EOL being a temporary employee. It is Page 14of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 however a fact that the Applicant even did not resume her duties even after the expiry of two years, years i.e. on 23.08.2023. The Head of Office of CFSL Delhi vide their order dated 28.06.2022 intimated the applicant that competent authority had already denied extension of the requested EOL upto 22.08.2022 vide their letter dated 01.06.2022. Further, the competent authority has also not sanctioned the extension of EOL up to one year i.e. up to August 2023. Applicant was also directed to report for duties with immediate effect otherwise the absence will be treated as unauthorized unauthorized absence subject to disciplinary action as per rule. It is further contended that only after the denials of EOL vide order dated 01.06.2022, the Applicant raised the issue of her son's health condition. According to the Petitioner, her second son was born on 14.10.2020 and she raised the child's health issue as the reason for the extension of EOL only after 02.06.2022, i.e. after a lapse of more than one year seven months. The Director CFSL Delhi vide their order dated 22.11.2022 informed the applicant that the competent authority has not acceded to her request and also directed to join her duties failing which departmental action as per rule will be taken against her for unauthorized absence and indiscipline. The applicant filed the O.A. No. 3511/2022 before this Tribunal seeking the relief for quashing the impugned order dated 01.06.2022, 28.06.2022 and 22.11.2022 which she did not comply. The applicant has joined her duties in the CFSL, Delhi only on 02.11.2023 w whereas she was sanctioned EOL up-to up to 22.02.2022 by the competent authority.
Page 15of 19
Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022
Applicant therefore remained on unauthorized absence with effect from 23.02.2022 to 01.11.2023, i.e. for a total period of 1 years, 8 months and 22 days on the grounds of her health issues and her son illness. She failed to produce any medical certificate from the competent authority in support of her claim. The applicant is an incumbent of Group-A Group post in Level- 11 of the Pay Matrix. As such she is expected to maintain her conduct in accordance with the instructions contained in CCS (Conduct) Rules. Applicant might be aware that leave is not a matter of right and is further subject to fulfillment of rule position and due formalities in this regard. Denial of EOL was conveyed to the applicant in the administrative capacity in accordance with the rule position and not otherwise as has been alleged by the applicant.
6.5 We also draw a reference to Rule 25(1) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. Ref. Absence after expiry of leave-- (1) Unless the authority competent to grant leave extends the leave, a Government servant who remains absent after the end of leave is entitled to no leave salary forthe period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave account as though it we were half pay leave, to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess of such leave due being treated as extraordinary leave. 6.6 There is no dispute that under Rule 25(2) harsh action which can be invoked by the Competent Authority. However, it is iimperative before taking action under Rule 25(2), the applicant ought to be Page 16of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 proceeded under Rule 25(1) . This is more more- so when an interim order was passed on 9.12.2022 by this th Tribunal. In present case, the applicant has neither availed continuous leave for a period exceeding five years nor any decision has been taken to dismiss, remove or compulsorily retire from Government service. One more important fact to be noted in the present case is that the applicant had been accorded following sanctioned leave on various account which were permissible under Leave Rules as well as conditions of service:
service:-
S.No. Type of leave During the period No.ofdaysleave availed
1. Maternity Leave 03.11.2016 to 01.05.2017 180
2. Child Care Leave 03.05.2017 to 04.05.2018 365 05.05.2018 to 05.05.2019 365
3. Earned Leave During different periods 84
4. Maternity Leave 12.10.2020 to 09.04.2021 180 5. Commuted Leave 39
6. ExtraOrdinaryLeave(upto 10.04.2021 to 11.05.2021 32 22.02.2022) 23.08.2021 to 22.02.2022 180 Total days leave availed 1425 Unauthorized absence from 23.02.2022 to 31.10.2023 616 6.7 The treatment of unauthorized absence from 23.02.2022 to 31.10.2023 has to be looked into as the applicant has already joined on 2.11.2023.No leave was sought by the respondents from the Tribunal for seeking appropriate order(s) for modification or vacation of interim order(s) while allowing allowing the applicant to join. We are are, therefore of the view that after carrying out necessary due and drawn therefore, statement of leave which are eligible under Leave Rule(s), the Competent Authority may pass appropriate order(s) in terms of Rule 25 (1) of the Leave Leave Rules, 1972 instead of disciplinary action. One Page 17of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 more aspect to borne in mind that the applicant was offered in-situ promotion to the grade of Sr. Scientific Officer Grade-I (Group-A) in the pay level 11 under the FCS scheme with effect from 10.11.2020 vide office order no. 210/2020 dated 18.11.2020. It is further submitted that the applicant resumed her duties in the CFSL, New Delhi w.e.f. 12.05.2021(F/N) after availing maternity leave from 12.10.2020 to 09.04.2021 and EOL from 10.04.2021 to 11.05.2021.
She was also allowed in-situ in situ promotion to the grade of Senior Scientific Officer Grade-I Grade I by the Department w.e.f 12.05.2021. 6.8 In CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).8850 8850-8852 of 2024) Jaya Bhattacharya Vs. The State Of West Bengal & Ors decided on 25.02.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
under:
"11.What is discernible from the record is that despite Tribunal's order dated 01.12.2003 directing the Collector to cause a departmental inquiry in respect of the appellant's allegations to the effect that though she joined the office and signed the attendance register she was not allowed to perform her duties and was not paid salary from May, 1987 onwards, no such inquiry was ever conducted by the respondents/authorities. Even though the order passed by the respondents/authorities on 19.05.2011 that her unauthorized absence is treated as extraordinary leave and her service is regularized was not challenged subsequently, the fact remains that the appellant has been condemned unheard unheard without subjecting her to any departmental inquiry despite Tribunal's order. Any observation by the Tribunal or the High Court in subsequent proceedings that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she was prevented from performing her duties would nnot ensure to the benefit of the respondents for the simple reason that the said fact could have been established either for or against the appellant only in a duly constituted departmental inquiry. The respondents' failure to conduct an inquiry as per Tribunal's unal's order cannot shift the burden on the appellant to prove that she was prevented from working. Denial of pensionary benefits to an employee must emanate from any rule enabling the government for such denial. When the services have been regularized by treating the same as extraordinary leave the same cannot be treated as unauthorised leave for denying the pensionary benefits. The respondents could have denied the pension to the appellant by proving that she was unauthorizedly absent for the subject periodand odand not by refusing to hold an inquiry against her. In our considered Page 18of 19 Item No.29 C-V O.A. No.3511/2022 view, having once regularized her service during the period of absence by granting extraordinary leave, it cannot be held that the said period can be treated as break in service. In the the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the appellant would be entitled for pension. We, accordingly, direct the respondents/authorities to finalise the appellant's pension within a period of three months. Howeve However, the appellant shall not be entitled for any arrears.
7. CONCLUSION 7.1 In view of the above analysis, we quash and set aside the impugned order(s) passed by the respondents. However, the respondent(s) are not precluded from passing any order(s) in terms of Rule 25 (1) of Leave Rule, 1972,, in respect of the applicant within period of thirty days from date of receipt of this order. The O.A. is disposed of in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Costs made easy.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (ManishGarg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 19of 19