Delhi High Court
Sohan Lal vs Kendriya Vidhyalay Sangathan & ... on 15 October, 2015
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3044/2014
% Date of Judgment : 15.10.2015
SOHAN LAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate
Versus
KENDRIYA VIDHYALAY SANGATHAN & ORS...... Respondent
Through : Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CAT) dated
04.03.2014.
2. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of
this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Group 'D'
Employee against a temporary post w.e.f. 23.04.1986, he was
regularized as a Group 'D' Employee w.e.f. 23.04.1988. Petitioner
remained on leave from April, 2001 till 07.09.2001 on the ground that
he fell seriously ill at his native place on 01.09.2001 and remained
under medical treatment till 30.10.2001. Petitioner sent an application
on 09.09.2001 for extension of leave by two months. He requested
for further leave and he claims that he was fit to join duty w.e.f.
23.12.2001. Petitioner claims that he was not allowed to join duty by
the Principal and a memorandum was issued to him on 29.12.2001
removing him from service under Article 81 (D) of the Education
Code of CVS. His appeal was rejected by an order dated 02.08.2002
by the Appellate Authority. An OA was filed against the aforesaid
order. However, in the meanwhile his Revision Petition was
dismissed which led to the filing of another OA. The OA was
allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority
to reconsider the matter. The Appellate Authority took a sympathetic
view in the matter and reinstated the petitioner with immediate effect.
The Appellate Authority also decided that the period for which no
leave was sanctioned and the period during which the appellant /
petitioner herein absented himself from duty wilfully, would be
treated as 'dies non' for all purposes. In the third round of litigation,
the petitioner approached the Tribunal and the OA was decided by an
order dated 07.01.2009 with a direction to the respondent to
reconsider the intervening period treating as qualifying service only
for pension and passed an order thereafter. The appellate authority
rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a
miscellaneous application which was dismissed with leave to the
petitioner to challenge the order dated 15/19.05.2009 in appropriate
proceedings. Another OA was filed which was dismissed and has led
to the filing of the present writ petition.
3. After some hearing in the matter, Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner has yet not calculated
whether the period of his absence which is to be treated as dies non
would affect his pensionary benefits or not. He further submits that in
case his pensionary benefits are affected, he would then make a
representation to the respondents while taking recourse to Rule 28 of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
4. As prayed, present writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
OCTOBER 15, 2015
sc
