Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Puja Gupta vs School Education Department on 5 February, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 997/2024
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 997/2024
Reserved on: - 25.11.2025
Pronounced on: - 05.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
Puja Gupta; aged 53 years
W/o Sh. Hans Raj, R/o Shiv Nagar, Ward No. 11,
Opposite Union Church, Udhampur
Pin 182101
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. Nitin Bhasin)
VERSUS
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Principal
Secretary to Govt., School Eucation Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu. Pin 180001
2. Director School Education, Jammu. Pin 181205
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 997/2024
3. Chief Education Officer, Udhampur. Pin 182101
4. Headmaster, Govt. High School Parand, (Zone Panchari) Pin
182125
5. Headmaster, Govt. High School Darsoo, (Zone Jib) Pin 182101
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld AAG)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 997/2024
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) "To quash Order dated 29.03.2023 issued by the respondent no.4 to the extent the period from 07.06.2020 to 25.11.2020 (172 days) has been treated as Commuted Leave on full pay and the period from 26.11.2020 to 17.05.2022 (538 days) has been treated as Extra Ordinary Leave without pay and allowances,
b) To issue directions to the respondents to treat the period from 07.06.2020 to 25.11.2020 (172 days) and the period from 26.11.2020 to 17.05.2022 (538 days) of the applicant as on duty or in the alternative to treat the aforesaid period as half on duty and half as child care leave.
c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: O.A. No. 997/2024
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in her pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant is a substantive Master in the School Education Department of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
While posted at HSS Garhi in the year 2016, she was rendered surplus due to non-availability of a sanctioned post of Master in the said institution and her salary was being drawn against a vacant post elsewhere. In order to adjust such surplus Masters, the Directorate of School Education, Jammu issued Order No. 1233-DSEJ of 2019 dated 30.11.2019, whereby the applicant was transferred and posted to Government High School Darsoo, Zone Jib, against a vacancy.
b) Pursuant thereto, the applicant was relieved from HSS Garhi on 09.12.2019 and reported to the Headmaster, Government High School Darsoo on 10.12.2019 for joining. However, her joining was not accepted on the ground that no post of Master was vacant in the institution. On the same date, the applicant Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: O.A. No. 997/2024 submitted an application seeking sanction of leave on medical/maternity grounds till her joining, on which the Headmaster recorded that due to non-availability of a vacant post, the applicant could not be allowed to join.
c) Aggrieved by refusal of joining despite a transfer order showing posting against vacancy, the applicant approached the Director School Education, Jammu and thereafter the administrative department, seeking suitable adjustment. The record reveals that the School Education Department forwarded the representations of several similarly placed Masters, including the applicant, to the Directorate on 02.03.2020 with a direction to take appropriate action. While other cases were settled, the applicant's case remained unresolved.
d) During this period, repeated representations were made by the applicant, including to higher authorities and the office of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor. The correspondence placed on record shows that the issue of non-acceptance of her joining on account of non-availability of vacancy was consistently brought Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: O.A. No. 997/2024 to the notice of the authorities, and directions were repeatedly issued to examine her case and effect adjustment, particularly noting that she had been without posting and salary.
e) It further emerges from the record that a vacancy of Master arose at Government High School Darsoo in January 2020 due to promotion of an incumbent as Lecturer. However, there is no material on record to show that this vacancy was ever communicated to the applicant or that she was directed to join against the said post. Ultimately, after a lapse of more than two years, the Directorate vide communication dated 17.05.2022 directed that the applicant be allowed to join at GHS Darsoo and also ordered an enquiry regarding the intervening period.
f) The applicant joined her duties on 18.05.2022. However, the issue of settlement of the intervening period from December 2019 to May 2022 and release of salary remained pending. Subsequently, the intervening period was settled vide order dated 29.03.2023 by treating part of the period as commuted leave on full pay and the remaining substantial period as Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: O.A. No. 997/2024 extraordinary leave without pay and allowances. The applicant contends that this order was communicated belatedly and that salary was actually drawn only in March 2024.
g) The grievance raised in the present OA is confined to the legality of treating the intervening period as leave, particularly extraordinary leave without pay, despite the admitted fact that the applicant was not permitted to join due to non-availability of vacancy and remained unadjusted for reasons not attributable to her.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have contested the OA on the preliminary grounds of maintainability, delay and suppression of facts. On merits, it is contended that the applicant did not submit a proper joining report at Government High School Darsoo and instead applied for medical leave. According to the respondents, since Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: O.A. No. 997/2024 the applicant did not physically join her place of posting, the intervening period could not be treated as duty.
b) It is asserted that during the Covid-19 period, teachers were required to take online classes and the applicant did not perform any such duty. The respondents further submit that the applicant remained absent without sanctioned leave and, therefore, her absence had to be regularised under the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979. It is pleaded that in terms of Rule 32(5), the competent authority is empowered to retrospectively commute periods of absence into extraordinary leave.
c) The respondents admit that the applicant was ultimately allowed to join on 18.05.2022 and that her salary was released thereafter upon settlement of the intervening period. They justify the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 as being strictly in accordance with rules and deny any arbitrariness or discrimination.
4. In the rejoinder to the reply, the petitioner has averred as follows: - Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: O.A. No. 997/2024
a) In rejoinder, the applicant reiterates that she was prevented from joining by the respondents themselves on the explicit ground of non-availability of a vacant post, a fact which stands admitted in the official endorsements and reports of the Headmaster. It is contended that once the joining itself was refused, the allegation of unauthorised absence is wholly misconceived.
b) The applicant specifically denies the respondents' assertion that she failed to approach the authorities or suppressed material facts, pointing out that her repeated representations and the extensive official correspondence on record demonstrate persistent pursuit of her adjustment. It is further pleaded that even after a vacancy arose in January 2020, the applicant was never informed nor directed to join, and the respondents cannot now shift the burden of their administrative inaction onto the applicant.
c) The applicant also disputes the applicability of extraordinary leave, contending that she neither applied for such leave nor Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 997/2024 were the statutory conditions under Rule 32 satisfied. It is emphasised that the Covid-19 period, during which schools remained closed, has been uniformly treated as duty for similarly placed employees, and denial of the same benefit to the applicant is arbitrary and discriminatory.
d) The rejoinder concludes by asserting that the impugned settlement of the intervening period is contrary to rules, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and liable to be set aside, with a consequential direction to treat the entire intervening period as duty for all intents and purposes.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
6. The applicant has approached this Tribunal aggrieved of the order dated 29.03.2023 whereby the period from 07.06.2020 to 25.11.2020 has been treated as commuted leave on full pay and the period from 26.11.2020 to 17.05.2022 has been treated as extraordinary leave without pay and allowances, despite the fact that she was not permitted to join her place of posting due to non-availability of a Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 997/2024 vacant post and remained unadjusted for reasons not attributable to her.
7. The factual matrix, as emerging from the pleadings and documents on record, is largely undisputed. The applicant, a substantive Master in the School Education Department, was rendered surplus at HSS Garhi and was accordingly transferred vide Order dated 30.11.2019 to Government High School Darsoo against a shown vacancy. She was relieved on 09.12.2019 and reported for joining on 10.12.2019. Her joining, however, was not accepted by the Headmaster on the specific ground that no post of Master was lying vacant in the institution. This fact stands recorded contemporaneously on her application itself and is not denied by the respondents.
8. Thereafter, the applicant persistently approached the departmental authorities for her adjustment. The record shows that representations were forwarded by the administrative department with clear directions to take appropriate action. While similarly situated officials were adjusted, the case of the applicant remained unattended. During this entire period, the applicant was neither allowed to join nor was any Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: O.A. No. 997/2024 alternative posting order issued in her favour. Even when a vacancy arose in January 2020 at the same institution due to promotion of an incumbent, there is no material to show that the applicant was ever informed or directed to join against the said vacancy.
9. Ultimately, after a lapse of more than two years, the Directorate directed that the applicant be allowed to join, and she joined on 18.05.2022. However, instead of rectifying the administrative lapse, the respondents proceeded to retrospectively treat the entire intervening period as leave, including extraordinary leave without pay, culminating in the impugned order dated 29.03.2023.
10. The defence of the respondents is that the applicant did not physically join her place of posting and remained absent. This plea, however, does not withstand judicial scrutiny. Once the respondents themselves declined to accept the joining of the applicant on the ground of non- availability of a vacancy, the allegation of unauthorised absence becomes legally untenable. An employee cannot be held guilty of absence when she is prevented from joining by the administration itself. The principle is well settled that no person can be made to Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 997/2024 suffer for the fault of the employer, particularly in matters of posting and adjustment which lie exclusively within the administrative domain.
11. The respondents' reliance on the provisions relating to extraordinary leave is equally misplaced. Extraordinary leave under the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979 can be granted only in specific contingencies and ordinarily upon request of the employee. In the present case, the applicant never sought extraordinary leave, nor were the statutory conditions satisfied. Retrospective conversion of a forced, employer-created hiatus into extraordinary leave without pay amounts to penalising the employee for administrative inaction, which is impermissible in-service law.
12. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that the intervening period substantially overlaps with the Covid-19 pandemic, during which schools remained closed and similarly placed employees were treated as on duty. Singling out the applicant for adverse treatment, despite her inability to join being occasioned by the respondents Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: O.A. No. 997/2024 themselves, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
13. This Tribunal is of the considered view that the delay in adjustment of the applicant from December 2019 till May 2022 is entirely attributable to the respondents. The impugned order seeks to legitimise an admitted administrative lapse by shifting the burden onto the applicant, which cannot be sustained. The settled principle that service benefits cannot be denied where the employee is kept out of work for no fault of her own squarely applies.
14. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 29.03.2023, insofar as it treats the intervening period as commuted leave and extraordinary leave without pay and allowances, is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.
15. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed and it is ordered as under:
a) The impugned Order dated 29.03.2023 is quashed and set aside to the extent it treats the period from 07.06.2020 to 25.11.2020 as commuted leave and the period from 26.11.2020 Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: O.A. No. 997/2024 to 17.05.2022 as extraordinary leave without pay and allowances.
b) The respondents are directed to treat the entire period from 09.12.2019 till 17.05.2022 as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes, including pay, allowances, increments, continuity of service, seniority and pensionary benefits.
c) All consequential monetary benefits shall be calculated and released in favour of the applicant within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after adjusting any amount already paid.
d) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with without insisting upon any fresh representation from the applicant.
16. No order as to costs.
(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Judicial Member /harshit / Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV