Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gurdev Singh S/O Late S. Sant Singh vs Union Of India Through G.M. Northern ... on 11 December, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH. O.A.No.553-HR-2010 Decided on: November 12, 2010 CORAM : HONBLE MS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Gurdev Singh S/o Late S. Sant Singh, R/o 12/1-C, Rail Vihar, MDC, Panchkula, Haryana. . Applicant By : Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate. Versus 1. Union of India through G.M. Northern Railway, Baroda House, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Works Manager, N. Rly., Workshop, Jagadhri Workshop. By : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate. . Respondents O R D E R (oral)
SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) The applicant has filed this O.A. claiming that he was working as Head Train Examiner in 1984, He met with an accident and was, therefore, medically decategorized and was adjusted as a Head Clerk. He completed 5 years of Apprenticeship Training and on a request having been made by him to the Administration, he was posted as Charge man (Junior Engineer0. He ultimately retired as a Senior Section Engineer from Kalka Workshop of Northern Railway which is sister concern of Jagadhri Workshop. He never availed any unauthorized leave and he was never informed about his leave account that it was mis-placed.
2. The applicant submitted a letter dated 14.2.2007 to know about his missing leave record and for fixing responsibility (Annexure A-2) upon guilty officials. Certain other correspondence was also exchanged by applicant with the respondents including under the Right to Information Act. However, he was informed that no leave was standing to his credit and as such he could not be paid any amount on account of leave encashment. The applicant has, thus, prayed for in this O.A. that the same be accepted and the amount of leave encashment as per extant rules be paid to the applicant.
3. The respondents have filed a detailed reply. Besides taking legal pleas of applicant having not come to the court with clean hands and O.A. is barred by time, it is pleaded that applicant himself has admitted that had he known about the fact of his leave record being upto date, he could have accumulated leave by availing less leave during his service. Thus, the presumption is that applicant knows that he had availed off all his leave and he is trying to take benefit of fact that his leave record was mis-placed.
4. It is submitted by the respondents that there is a provision in rules for reconstruction of the record of leave if it is mis-placed. The leave record of the applicant was mis-placed but was re-constructed as per rules and it was found that no leave was standing to his credit when he retired from service and as such he is not entitled to any leave encashment, what to talk of 300 days. The applicant has tried to indulge fishing in troubled waters. He is trying to take benefit of the fact that his leave record was mis-placed.
5. It is further submitted by the respondents that as per as per provision of Rule contained in P.S. No. 10800 dated 27.7.1993 the missing leave record of an employee can be reconstructed. In case of a part of leave account being lost, the balance brought forward, as indicated in the part leave account still available should not be ignored but should be accepted as authentic and the cumulative balance worked out on the basis of the same. In the cases of missing leave accounts, these can be reconstructed on the basis of leave account charts, pay bill ledgers, service register entries office orders on leave the employees own statement, muster rolls, absentee statements etc.
5. It is further submitted that the Central Information Commission in its decision dated 28.5.2009 has recorded a clear cut finding that on the date of retirement of the applicant there was no leave balance for encashment. In 1989, when Delhi Division was bifurcated into Delhi and Ambala some of the records pertaining to the period prior to 1989 got misplaced and therefore, the leave detail had to be recast for the period 1965 onwards by taking the total of leaves taken from 1989 to 1994 and calculating the average per year and extrapolating the same to arrive at the leave balance. The calculations were done as per Rule P.S. No. 10800 dated 27.7.1993 which showed that the leave balance of the applicant was NIL. This order has attained finality. The Commission has clearly held that not only all information was provide to the applicant but also all his payments and dues except leave encashment, which was not given since there was zero leave balance, has been paid.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the file.
7. It is not in dispute that the leave record of the applicant was mis-placed and there is provision in the Rules for re-construction of the same. The respondents upon reconstruction of the record found that no leave was due to the applicant and as such he was not entitled to any leave encashment. The applicant who was working at a responsible position at the time of his retirement was expected to know about the position of leave due and availed by him if the record had been misplaced. He cannot now be allowed to turn around at this stage and claim that had he known about factual position of less leave at his credit, he would have accumulated the same. We have also perused the leave record prepared by the respondents which indeed shows that there was no leave at the credit of the applicant. Even the CIC in its decision dated 28.5.2008 (Annexure R-7) after accepting the leave record prepared by respondents has recorded that the leave balance of applicant was zero and thus he was not paid any amount on account of leave encashment. I would treat this original Application in the nature of frivolous litigation but refrain from imposing any cost upon the applicant who is a retiree.
8. In view of the above discussion this O.A. is found to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed. No costs.
(SHYAMA DOGRA) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh.
Dated: November 12, 2010 HC*
- 4 -
O.A.No.581-PB-2008