High Court · 2025

Petition under A iicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be 6116g6stances stated \\ \ direction or writ speciall pleased to issue an order certiorari calling for the rr pertaining to order ry 21/24 inOA No.200 0, ,r"oto' ,no orou,^ o-rt"o ,o.oarr,uo the fire of the Honbl t Aorninistrative "r, Hyderabad as iregar, ,rbit,. '''o'o one in the nature of writ of 24.07.2024 in R.A.No. oA No'2oot2ozz on B"n.h, 'n ary, contrary to raw and ,rr'.T:;:'.Bde'abad IA NO: 10F 2025 petition under Ser rhe arridav, ,,,"0 ," #i'l ::[P;:it;:l':r]i'. the circumstances stated in High court may be pleased to suspend the operation ,n" ^.^^."]':': ^tl: o n R A N"'"'' i o o mr :#H iltr, i:i' ::',:1:;:,1: z' o'!' disposalorw.p. ative rribunar uvou"ouoNl::::t:;r:.::T::l; "t -'i. Counsel for the petitioner s ru c a 6 i i;i'i,: E lii,iilNff B;l,EELliilJ,A E* o,, Counsel forthe Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER ",,o THE HON'BL E SRI JUSTICE AB AND THE H ON'B LE SRI J(,STICE INAND KU MAR SHAVILI INARA-YANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETTTION N 524 of 2025 o. ORDER: ee' the Hon'bte Si 'lustice Abhinond Kumar Sluutli) ThisWritPetitionisfiledaggrievedbytheorderspassedbythe Central Administrative Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench (for short' 'the Tribunal') in Review Application No'21 of 2024 in O'A'No'2O0 of 2022 dated 24-07.2024 and' also the orders passed in O'A'NO'20O of 2022 ' ' dated,20.O3.2024'

2. Heard Sri R'Anurag' learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Soiicitor General of India' appearing for the Petrtroners' J It has been contended by the petitioners that all the respondents employees of Nuclear Fuel Complex Hyderabad and they were appointed on various dates from the Years L97O to 1972 as Technicians and they have retired from service during the years 2O0B- 2or2. rti s contencled that the respondents have made a representation to the petitioners stating that their Half Pay Leaves should be counted for the purpose of encashment along with Earned l'eave and the same was rejected by the petitioners on 31'O7'2021 sta'ting that the gave encashm ent of 24O days of Annual Leave instead of of Vl Central PaY Commrssron' petitroners after imPlementatlon 30O daYs, . .,. .r. a .t ar ':|i..:t , e Tribunal ave has to to encash O.A., on detailed Aggrieved by the same, the respondlgnts have approached th by frling O.A.No.273 of 2027 contending that the HaJf pay Le be accumulated towards Earned Leave so as to enable them Earned Leave and the Tribunal has disposed of the said 09 .O3.2O21 with a direction to the respondents to file representation. Thereafter, the respondents have representation to the 31.O7.2021. Therefore, Tribunal by filing subject O.A.No.2OO of 2022 without appreciating any of the contentions raised uide orders clated 20.O3.2O24 ailowed O.A., i petitioners and the same the respondents have again made a was rejected on approached the and the Tribunal, by the petitioners, n favour of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the Office Memorandum dated og'01 1g86 woulcr made it clear that Department of Personner and Training replaceci the existing entitlement of Half pay Leave in respect of industrial employees, who are governed by the Factories Act' 1g4g and stated that Half pay Leave can be accumulated without any limit with effect from 01.01. 1gg5, which would mean that Half pay Leave can be permitted onry from o1.o1.1gg5 to accumulate to the Earned Leave' Therefore, the respondents can avail encashment of Earned Leave only from 01.01. 19g5. But the respondents were seeking Harf pay Leave prior ro 01-01.1gg5, which is not permissible. This fact was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and the J Tribunal mechanically allowed the O.A', in favour of the respondents' O.A.No.2OO of 2022, dated Aggrieved bY the orders Passed in Review APPlication No.21 of 2O.O3.2O24, the petitioners have frled 2024 arrd' the Tribunal, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners, dismissed the said Review Application uide order dated 24 -O7 -2024 ' Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.200 of 2024, dated 20'O3' 2024 and also orders passed in Review Application No.21 of 2024, dated 24'07 '2024' ( I

5. This Court, having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, is of the considered view that the Tribunal has allowed O.A.No.2OO of 2022 in favour of the respondents by relying on a subsequent Offrce Memorandum dated O7'10'1986 wherein' it was clarifred that the entire Half Pay Lave at the credit of industrial em1lloyees who retired/retire on superanmration on or after 01.01.1985 shall be allowed to be encashed subject to the limit of encashment of such Half Pay Leave' Admittedly' in the instant case' all the respondents have retired after 01'O1'1985' Therefore' all the respondents are entitled to Half Pay Leave so as to enable them to encash the Earned [.eave. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal in Review Application No.21 of 2024 in O.A.No'2OO of 2022, dated24'07'2024 and also the orders passed in O.A.NO.2OO of 2022 ' dated 20'O3'2024' -.-- _r-.--a--13.?l.'F<- .ll 'l:.. , , 1 6' Accordingly, the present Writ petition is dismissed. There sha1l be no orders as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shali stand closed. //TRUE COPY// A SD/- T. JAYASREE S NT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER ffS 33 3ooll"o"o' Praveen Kumar Dv soticitor se Of India [OPUC] To, 1 2 TJ GJP % i L HIGH COURT DATED:08 tO1t2}2s ORDER WP.No.S2B of 2025 STATE li\\ 1\$15 G) >. :-,\- * I DESPPi o <) i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \qts r.\o L\