Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Radha vs M/O Communications on 27 September, 2023
1 OA No.310/01566/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01566/2016
Dated Wednesday the 27th day of September Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
Smt. K. Radha
W/o Sri. K. Srinivasaraghavan
Sub Postmaster, Srirangam West SO
Resident of TH 6, Vignesh Paradise
Melur Road, Srirangam
Trichy -620 006. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. K. M. Ramesh
Vs
1. Union of India
Rep. by the Director of Postal Services
Central Region, Tamil Nadu
Tiruchirappalli - 620 001.
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Srirangam Division, Srirangam - 620 006
Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. J. Vasu
2 OA No.310/01566/2016
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
"To set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent bearing B1/PF/KR dated 04.08.2015 and the letter of the 2nd Respondent bearing B1/PF/KR dated 10.08.2016 informing the applicant that the 1st Respondent has rejected the appeal as it was time barred as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to treat the absence period of the applicant from 03.05.2015 to 01.07.2015 as Extraordinary leave with pay and allowances and pass such other order or direction as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is as under:
The applicant joined service as Postal Assistant on 10.05.1992 and in June 2014 the applicant was posted to work as Sub Postmaster in Srirangam Sub Post Office. Whileso, on 17.03.2015 the applicant's 14 year old son suddenly affected by Seizure Disorder and he was kept under constant vigil and attention. On 08.04.2015 the applicant applied for 30 days extraordinary leave to care of his ailing son. However, the leave sought by the applicant was restricted to 15 days only by the 2 nd 3 OA No.310/01566/2016 respondent. By letter dt. 03.04.2015 the applicant sough extension of leave whereas, by letter dt. 06.05.2015 the 2nd respondent rejected the extension of leave and directed the applicant to rejoin duty. The applicant submitted a detailed representation on 07.05.2015 highlighting her presence is very much required to take care of her ailing son. Whereas the 2nd respondent passed impugned order dt. 04.08.2015 treating the leave period sought by the applicant as 'dies non'. Hence the applicant preferred appeal on 04.07.2016 to the 1st respondent as against the impugned order of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued impugned letter dated 10.08.2016 stating that the 1st respondent has rejected the appeal as it is time barred. Hence this OA.
3. After notice, the respondents have filed a detailed reply and submitted that the applicant was granted the leave of kind requested from 18.03.2015 to 02.05.2015 during the period of treatment. The details of leave requested by the applicant are as follows:
EL W/o MC for 10 days from 18.3.2015 Commuted leave on MC for 6 days from 27.3.15 to 1.4.15 (Annexure IV) EXOL for 30 days from 13.4.2015 (Annexure V) CCL for 30 days from 3.5.2015 (Annexure VI)
4. The applicant has requested for grant of CCL only from 3.5.2015 and that too, the applicant was not informed, that she was not granted CCL and not directed to avail any other kind of leave. The leave request of the applicant itself was not considered due to circumstances of the case. 4 OA No.310/01566/2016
Hence the question of denying grant of Child Care Leave does not arise in the context as stated by the applicant.
5. As per CCS Leave Rules leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The averment of the applicant that there is no valid reason for denying the leave is not correct. The applicant was not denied leave abruptly. She was granted the requested leave from 18.03.2015 to 02.05.2015 i.e. for nearly 30 days in two spells. Due to exigencies of service only, the applicant was denied further extension of leave.
6. It is submitted that the applicant has exhausted the channel fo appeal but should have preferred petition to the Chief PMG. Before exhausting the said channel the applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal. The applicant did not prefer any petition to the CPMG. The respondents also filed their written submission and relied upon the orders passed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA 876/2015 in the case of Smt. Leelavathi N.J. Vs. The Deputy Accountant General (A/c & VLC), Office fo the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Thiruvananthapuram Kerala & another and Judgment in WP (C)No. 6136 of 2019 Durgesh K.Kothekar Vs UOI and Ors - Delhi High Court.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant strongly argued on the issue that when the applicant's son was detected with Seizure Disorder, she was left with no option in emergency to approach the experts. Hence she approached the hospital for his treatment and he was continuously under 5 OA No.310/01566/2016 the treatment therefore she has opted leave and the same has been granted. However, subsequently the same has been denied and she has been called to report to the duties. Since her leave applications rejected there was no other alternative in the month of July 2015 she reported to the duties. Subsequently she submitted a detailed representation and the same has been turned down treating the leave period sought by the applicant as 'dies non'. Though the applicant has submitted her appeal, however the same has been rejected by way of cryptic order on the ground of delay.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kakali Ghosh Vs Chief Secretary, Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others related to the CCL.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the another judgments.
1. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 31503 of 2012 dt 04.03.2023 in the matter of K. Subha Vs Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre (Madras) (2013(3) CTC 226)
2. The Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 2518 of 2013 dt 26.08.2014 in the matter of S. Mangala Vs Airports Authority of India & Others (2014 0 Supreme (Bom) 1658)
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant was granted the leave of kind requested from 18.03.2015 to 02.05.2015 during the period of treatment. The details of leave requested by the applicant are as follows:
EL W/o MC for 10 days from 18.3.2015 6 OA No.310/01566/2016 Commuted leave on MC for 6 days from 27.3.15 to 1.4.15 (Annexure IV) EXOL for 30 days from 13.4.2015 (Annexure V) CCL for 30 days from 3.5.2015 (Annexure VI)
11. The applicant has requested for grant of CCL only from 3.5.2015 and that too, the applicant was not informed, that she was not granted CCL and not directed to avail any other kind of leave. The leave request of the applicant itself was not considered due to circumstances of the case.
Hence the question of denying grant of Child Care Leave does not arise in the context as stated by the applicant.
12. As per CCS Leave Rules leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The averment of the applicant that there is no valid reason for denying the leave is not correct. The applicant was not denied leave abruptly. She was granted the requested leave from 18.03.2015 to 02.05.2015 i.e. for nearly 30 days in two spells. Due to exigencies of service only, the applicant was denied further extension of leave. Furthermore the applicant has not exhausted the remedies which are available. The applicant has to submit her petition to the CPMG.
13. In view of the submissions made by the parties, the applicant has to exhaust the remedy which are available under the law. Hence the applicant is directed to submit comprehensive petition referring to all the judgments to the CPMG within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The CPMG is directed to consider the same in accordance 7 OA No.310/01566/2016 with law followed by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Judgments relied by the applicant in her petition and pass reasoned and speaking order within three months thereafter.
14. OA is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member (A) Member (J)
27.09.2023
AS