Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India Through Its General ... on 6 December, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O. A. No.060/01165/2015 Date of decision: 06.12.2016
(Reserved on 19.11.2016)
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J).
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A).
Mohinder Singh S/o S. Arjan Singh R/o House No.2, Street No.1, C-Block, Sandhu Colony, Near OCM Mills, Chheharata Road, Amritsar, presently posted as Senior Sectional Officer in the office of Senior Assistant Financial Advisor (S&W) Northern Railway Mechanical Workshop, Amritsar.
APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi.
2. The Financial Advisor & CAO, Northern Railway Head Quarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. The Senior Assistant Financial Advisor (S&W), Northern Railway Mechanical Workshop, Amritsar.
RESPONDENTS
PRESENT: Sh. D. R. Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
Sh. Yogesh Putney, counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
1. The applicant herein is aggrieved against orders dated 03.06.2014 and 24.08.2015.
2. Undisputed facts, which led to filing of the present O.A., are that the applicant who was working with the respondent department as Senior Section Officer was transferred from Firozepur to Amritsar vide order dated 10.03.2016 where he did not join till 18.06.2007. Disciplinary Authority initiated departmental proceedings against him under Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which ultimately culminated in punishment of censure. Thereafter, the applicant submitted various requests for regularizing his unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 10.03.2006 to 17.07.2007 (total period of 495 days). The competent authority, after considering his request and rule formation, vide order dated 12.02.2013 allowed his request and regularized the period of absence by granting him extra ordinary leave as there is no leave to his credit and thus there was no ground for sanctioning of medical leave. However, inadvertently, respondents allowed increment for the said period. Subsequently, when this mistake came to the notice then vide order dated 03.6.2014, respondents rectified their mistake by passing the impugned orders.
3. The respondents have taken a stand in their written statement that since the applicant was not entitled to grant of increment during extra ordinary leave period as per rules, they have rectified their mistake. In this regard, they have relied upon the following judgments:-
i. Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2012 (4) RSJ 138.
ii. Jagdish Prajapti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, 1998 (2) ATJ 286.
iii. Raj Kumar Batra Vs. State of Haryana, 1992 (1) SCT 129 iv. Chandigarh Administration vs. Narang Singh, JT 1997 (3) SC 536.
4. Applicant has filed a rejoinder wherein he has contradicted averment made in the written statement and prayed that since the absence was due to medical reasons, therefore, he may be allowed to continue to avail benefit during that period.
5. We have heard Sh. D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Yogesh Putney, counsel for the respondents and have perused pleadings on record with the able assistance of learned counsel.
6. Concededly, the relevant absence period of the applicant was later on converted into extra ordinary leave and as per point 530 of Railway Establishment Code (Vol - I), no increment can be earned during extra ordinary leave period. Inadvertently, the applicant was allowed increment for said period, which was subsequently rectified by respondents by passing impugned order as per settled law, if there is mistake, Authorities are allowed to rectify it as and when the same comes to their notice. This is so held in the case of Jagdish Prajapat vs. the State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1998 (2) ATJ 286 and in U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Narendar Singh 2008 (2) SCC 756. Since applicant has not disputed that he cannot earn increment during that period, therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 03.06.2014 and 24.08.2015. The O.A. is therefore dismissed being devoid of any merit.
7. No costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Date:
Place: Chandigarh.
`KR
3
O.A. No.060/01165/2015