Delhi High Court
Jaiprakash vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 15 July, 2016
$~30.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5971/2016
% Judgment dated 15th July, 2016
JAIPRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through : Petitioner in person.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC for
GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 24595/2016
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5971/2016
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 29.4.2016 passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in
O.A.No.1704/2015 by which the O.A. filed by the petitioner seeking
the following prayer was dismissed:
"In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the
applicant prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be
pleased to direct the respondents to pay to him the payment of
his leave due as he was deprived by his rights along with interest
from the salary of official concerned at fault.
Any other or further order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal
deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the
case, may also be passed in favour of the applicants and against
the respondents."
4. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of the present petition are
that the petitioner was working as a PGT (Physics). Petitioner retired
on 31.8.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of
his employment, he was forced to work in place of other teachers. In
addition, he was advising the Department. It is further averred in the
petition that since as per the Government Policy he was entitled for re-
employment for two years and the consequential benefits during the
period of re-employment such as leaves and salary thereof, the
petitioner moved an application for grant of re-employment on
5.7.2011. Since the case of the petitioner for grant of re-employment
was rejected, on 8.7.2011 he applied for grant of Special Earned Leave.
5. Further as per the petitioner, as per Leave Rules he was entitled for
leave or re-employment with leave and salary, but the Department has
refused to grant him leave and instead issued a Show Cause Notice to
him on 29.7.2011, due to which re-employment was denied to him.
The petitioner thereafter filed a Criminal Case No.601/2012 against the
Principal and Deputy Director of Education, wherein summons were
issued against the Principal under Section 467 of the IPC, however, the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate refused to take any action against
regarding non-payment of amount as it was a civil dispute. Thereafter
the petitioner filed O.A.No.509/2013 before the Tribunal which was
also dismissed. Writ petition, being W.P.(C) 14261/2014 filed by the
petitioner before the Supreme Court of India was also dismissed on
23.3.2015, however, the Apex Court directed the concerned authority
that in case the petitioner files a representation with regard to his
entitlement for encashment of unutilised Earned Leave, the said
authority would consider the same within four weeks.
6. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that pursuant to the
direction passed by the Apex Court he had moved an application before
the respondents for encashment of leave, pursuant to which leave
encashment upto 300 days i.e. maximum permissible limit was allowed
to him, however, the respondents have failed to pass any order with
regard to other types of leaves such as Special Earned Leave and Half-
Pay Leave.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the
impugned order. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter
affidavit filed before the learned Tribunal was that they had sanctioned
to the petitioner encashment of earned leave to the extent of maximum
permissible limit and as far as other kinds of leaves are concerned, no
such encashment is permissible. The Learned Tribunal in the
concluding portion of the impugned order has also observed as under:
"5. I have heard the applicant in person as well as learned
proxy counsel for the respondents. In my opinion, this
O.A. is totally frivolous. The applicant has himself
admitted in his O.A. that earned leave encashment has
been allowed to him. No other type of leave is encashable
nor has the applicant shown any rule under which he
sought encashment of special earned leave as well as half
pay leave.
8. The position is no different today. The petitioner is unable to show any
Rule under which he is seeking encashment of Special Earned Leave as
well as Half-Pay Leave. Resultantly, we are left with no option but to
dismiss this petition. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
JULY 15, 2016
msr
