Daya Ram v. Union of India and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
This order addresses the petitioner's grievance regarding the treatment of a long absence period as extra ordinary leave (EOL) after his reinstatement due to delayed disposal of a writ petition.
What did the court decide?
The extra ordinary leave period from 9.9.1999 to 3.3.2014 treated as a period spent on duty, but no arrears of pay.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~4
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(C) 2625/2017
DAYA RAM
..... Petitioner Through: Mr.M.M.Singh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 11.12.2018
- The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th July, 2016 passed by the Officiating Commandant, 131 Battalion, BSF pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 3rd January, 2014 in W.P. (C) No. 7205/2000.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the long period of absence treated as extra ordinary leave during the pendency of the writ petition should be deemed as a period spent on duty for specific benefits.
How Fundamental Rule 54(4) read with Fundamental Rule 54(5) applies when the government servant is not fully exonerated.
Whether the petitioner can benefit from career progression and other consequential entitlements if the leave period is treated as duty time.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Daya Ram
- respondent
Union of India and Anr
Coram
S. Muralidhar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court