Delhi High Court
Pravin Kumar Kulshrestha vs Union Of India And Anr on 18 January, 2017
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 425/2017 & CM No.1988/2017
Date of Decision : 18th January, 2017
PRAVIN KUMAR KULSHRESTHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Verma, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhay Prakash,CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
1. Pravin Kumar Kulshrestha, in this writ petition, impugns the order
dated 2.8.2010, whereby his OA No.425/2015, praying for grant of full
salary for the period 29.5.2013 to 19.1.2014 has been dismissed by the
Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for
short).
2. The petitioner had earlier filed OA No.3990/2013, challenging his
transfer vide Office Order No.1128/5/13 posting him as Superintending
Engineer (TRG.3) in the Office of Chief Engineer (Trg.cum R&D), Delhi.
3. It appears that the said office was operating from Ghaziabad, which is
in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner did not join the said posting,
stating that he should be asked to work in an office only in Delhi. The
aforesaid OA was disposed of vide order dated 15.1.2014 recording as
under:
"5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant along
with the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents. I
have also perused the record. In my considered view, this is not a
fit case for this Tribunal to interfere. According to the Office
order dated 28.05.2013, the applicant was posted as SE (Trg.3) in
the office of CE (Trg. Cum R&D) Delhi. The said office is
admittedly operating from Ghaziabad. Therefore, just because the
word "Delhi" has been used with the said post and in the Office
Order dated 28.05.2013, the applicant cannot claim that he
should be posted in Delhi and not in Ghaziabad. I, therefore, do
not find any merit in the claim of the applicant as far as his
transfer is concerned. However, I do not find any valid reasons
for the Respondents for not releasing salary of the Applicant from
01.04.2013.
6. At this stage, the applicant who is present in court, has
submitted that he will report for duty at Ghaziabad by 20.01.2014.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also very fairly
submitted that as and when the applicant joins duty at Ghaziabad,
his salary will be released within a period of four weeks from that
date, as per rules.
7. In the above circumstances, I direct that the respondents
shall pay the applicant up-to-date salary as admissible under the
rules, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. Accordingly this OA is disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs."
4. In para 5 of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was reprimanded and it
was affirmatively held that the petitioner was wrong in not joining the
Office at Ghaziabad, which is located in the National Capital Region. The
petitioner, it was observed, could not claim that he should be posted only in
Delhi and should not be asked to report to the Office under the control of
Chief Engineer (Trg.cum R&D), Delhi of the CPWD, operating from
Ghaziabad. On the question of backwages for the period from 1.4.2013, i.e.,
the date from which the petitioner was not reporting for duty, para 7 of the
said order makes it clear that the salary would be admissible as per rules.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, CP No.161/2014,
which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.5.2014,
recording that the authorities had filed a reply, stating that the petitioner had
remained absent from duty from 29.5.2013 to 19.1.2014, and in case he
wants payment of salary for the said period, the petitioner was required to
apply for sanction of any kind of leave, which was due and admissible to
him. As the petitioner had not made any such application, the contempt
petition was dismissed and closed.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for half-pay leave
('HPL'), which was granted and paid to him. The petitioner apparently did
not have sufficient leave to get full pay.
7. The petitioner thereupon once again approached the Tribunal vide OA
No.425/2015, praying for grant and payment of full salary.
8. The petitioner cannot make the said prayer, in view of the order dated
15.1.2014, deciding OA No.3990/2013 and the order dated 20.5.2014,
disposing of CP No.161/2014. The earlier orders would operate as res
judicata/constructive res judicata. The petitioner would have been entitled
to full salary from 29.5.2013 to 19.1.2014 only if he had sufficient and
appropriate leave to his credit. The petitioner did not have the said leave and
accordingly has been paid half salary.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired
from services on 31.10.2014. The petitioner, it is submitted, had perceived
that he was wrongly denied the full salary from 29.5.2013 to 19.1.2014 and,
therefore, had filed OA No.425/2015. The Tribunal, while dismissing the
said OA, imposed costs of Rs.25,000/-, which the petitioner would find
difficult to pay. In view the aforesaid explanation, we waive the costs.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
JANUARY 18, 2017
tp
