The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26306 of 2024 Union of India and others ….. Petitioners Mr. Asutosh Mohanty, Central Govt. Counsel -versus- Subhash Chander ..... Opp. Party CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 04.02.2025 05. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard Mr. Asutosh Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- Union of India and others seeking a direction to quash the order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack (in short, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.279 of 2022 under Annexure-5. It appears that the opp. party Subhash Chander filed the Original Application challenging the order of rejection dated 26.05.2022 for regularization of his leave period during Covid-19 lockdown, inter alia, with other prayers. It further appears that the opp. party, who was working as Senior Field Officer in the Department of Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2025 13:10:42 Aviation Research Centre, Charbatia, Cuttack went on sanctioned earned leave w.e.f. 02.03.2020 to 13.03.2020 and before expiry of the said leave period, he approached the concerned authority seeking extension of leave period from 18.03.2020 to 27.03.2020, which was sanctioned by the authorities and he was supposed to join in his duty on 30.03.2020 (28th and 29th being Saturday and Sunday) but on account of lockdown imposed in all over India due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, no transport was available for him to travel to his place of duty i.e. Charbatia and after the situation became normal, his father fell ill and he was hospitalized and he returned to his work place on 17.08.2020 and joined on 31.08.2020 after remaining in home quarantine. The opp. party submitted his representation dated 16.12.2020 requesting the authorities to regularize the interregnum period during Covid-19 situation in accordance with DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020, but his representation was rejected by petitioner no.3 (The Secretariat, DG (S), New Delhi) vide order dated 24.09.2021 with a direction to the opp. party to submit leave application for the entire period starting from 02.03.2020 to 17.08.2020. The opp. party then submitted another representation dated 18.02.2022, which was also rejected vide order dated 26.05.2022. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before the learned Tribunal that the national lockdown was from 25.03.2020 and rail/air services had Page 2 of 5 resumed from 01.06.2020 but the opp. party did not join in his duty even after resumption, rather he joined only on 17.08.2020 and therefore, his request was not acceded to and he was asked to submit revised leave application. The learned Tribunal taking into account the DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 in detail came to hold that admittedly the opp. party was on sanctioned earned leave at the first instance from 02.03.2020 to 13.03.2020 and thereafter he applied for extension of leave from 18.03.2020 to 27.03.2020, which was also sanctioned and if it was not for the nationwide lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, the opp. party could have joined on 30.03.2020. The learned Tribunal has been pleased to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the opp. party that in view of the DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 at clause 4, the opp. party should have been treated to be on duty w.e.f. 25.03.2020 and the period from 25.03.2020 to 01.06.2020 should be dealt with accordingly. The learned Tribunal also taking into account column no.4 of DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 wherein it is stated that those employees who were on leave prior to the notification of lockdown and their leave ended during the lockdown period, they should be deemed to have joined on duty on the date the leave expired, if intimation in any form, indicating difficulty in joining duty due to non-availability of public transport/flights has been given by the Government servant to the office. In the case in hand, the sanctioned leave of the opp. party was to end on 27.03.2020 and Page 3 of 5 therefore, his duty period should be counted from 28.03.2020. The learned Tribunal disposed of the Original Application and directed the petitioners to consider the case of the opp. party and sanction the leave of the opp. party for the period from 28.03.2020 to 01.06.2020 strictly in terms of DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 and the rest of period of leave i.e. 02.06.2020 to 17.08.2020 be sanctioned as per Rules. The learned Tribunal also observed that the opp. party would also be entitled to any benefit arising out of the said regularization of leave. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court to the circular dated 17.06.2019 issued by the Aviation Research Centre, Directorate General of Security, Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, Charbatia, Cuttack wherein it is stated that the extension of leave already granted, without the sanction of competent authority or without any emergency ground will be viewed seriously and the intimation regarding leave/extension of leave must be mentioned with tentative period and the ground of leave or its extension without which such intimation holds no validity and all the unit heads were asked to ascertain from the telephonic intimation from the caller, the tentative period and ground of leave/extension of leave while sending intimation to the office. Therefore, the said circular makes it very clear that on telephonic intimation, if extension is sought for, the same can be granted. Page 4 of 5 In the case in hand, the opp. party applied for extension of leave from 18.03.2020 to 27.03.2020 over telephone and the same was sanctioned and therefore, the learned Tribunal is quite justified in holding that the case of the opp. party comes within the purview of column no.2 of DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned order carefully, we find no illegality in the impugned order which requires our interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) sipun (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 5 of 5