Dismissed¶36

Union of India v. Subhash Chander

Orissa HC4 Feb 2025WP(C)/26306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Covid-19 lockdown; regularization of leave period; earned leave extension granted on telephonic intimation; DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 (clause 4, column no.2, column no.4); deemed to have joined duty on expiry of leave; Aviation Research Centre circular dated 17.06.2019; Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack O.A. No.279 of 2022; Senior Field Officer, Charbatia; writ petition against Tribunal order dismissed; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the writ petition stands dismissed, leaving intact the Tribunal's directions to sanction leave for 28.03.2020 to 01.06.2020 per DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 and 02.06.2020 to 17.08.2020 as per Rules. ¶36

Union of India Vs Subhash Chander — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack directing sanction/regularization of the opp. party's leave in terms of DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 suffers from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in the writ petition. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

There is no illegality in the impugned Tribunal order dated 12.07.2022 which requires this Court's interference; accordingly the writ petition fails and stands dismissed.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The learned Tribunal was quite justified in holding that the opp. party's case comes within column no.2 of DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020, since his extension of leave (18.03.2020 to 27.03.2020) was applied for and sanctioned over telephone.

¶35

Key takeaways

The circular dated 17.06.2019 of the Aviation Research Centre makes it clear that on telephonic intimation, extension of leave, if sought, can be granted.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.26306 of 2024, decided 04.02.2025 (S.K. Sahoo and Savitri Ratho, JJ.) - Union of India and others v. Subhash Chander: Writ petition against the order dated 12.07.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No.279 of 2022 dismissed. The opp. party, a Senior Field Officer in the Aviation Research Centre, Charbatia, was on sanctioned earned leave (02.03.2020-13.03.2020) with a sanctioned extension (18.03.2020-27.03.2020) applied for over telephone, and could not join duty on 30.03.2020 owing to the nationwide Covid-19 lockdown, resuming work only on 31.08.2020. His representations for regularization of the interregnum having been rejected (orders dated 24.09.2021 and 26.05.2022), the Tribunal, applying DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 (clause 4 and column nos. 2 and 4), treated him as on duty from 25.03.2020, counted duty from 28.03.2020, and directed sanction of leave for 28.03.2020-01.06.2020 per the OM and 02.06.2020-17.08.2020 as per Rules, with attendant benefits. The Division Bench noted the Aviation Research Centre circular dated 17.06.2019 permitting grant of leave extension on telephonic intimation, found no illegality in the impugned order, and dismissed the writ petition; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26306 of 2024

¶2

Union of India and others

¶3

….. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Asutosh Mohanty, Central Govt. Counsel

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Subhash Chander

¶7

..... Opp. Party

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

¶10

THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

04.02.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶15

Heard Mr. Asutosh Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitionersUnion 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

It further appears that the opp. party, who was working as Senior Field Officer in the Department of

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2025 13:10:42

¶21

Page 1 of 5

¶22

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 (28^th and 29^th 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The opp. party then submitted another representation dated 18.02.2022, which was also rejected vide order dated 26.05.2022.

¶25

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

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

therefore, his duty period should be counted from 28.03.2020.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

sipun

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶38

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶39

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶40

Judge

¶41

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶42

Page 5 of 5

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12.07.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No.279 of 2022 (Annexure-5), disposing of the Original Application by directing sanction of the opp. party's leave for 28.03.2020 to 01.06.2020 per DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 and 02.06.2020 to 17.08.2020 as per Rules, with attendant benefits.¶16
Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack · 12.07.2022
Prior proceeding
Opp. party, Senior Field Officer in the Aviation Research Centre, Charbatia, Cuttack, was on sanctioned earned leave 02.03.2020 to 13.03.2020; extension of leave from 18.03.2020 to 27.03.2020 was sanctioned; he was to join on 30.03.2020 but could not travel due to the nationwide Covid-19 lockdown; he returned on 17.08.2020 and joined on 31.08.2020 after home quarantine.¶22
Prior proceeding
Opp. party's representation dated 16.12.2020 seeking regularization of the interregnum period per DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 was rejected by petitioner no.3 (The Secretariat, DG (S), New Delhi) vide order dated 24.09.2021, with a direction to submit leave application for the entire period 02.03.2020 to 17.08.2020.¶23
Prior proceeding
Opp. party's further representation dated 18.02.2022 was also rejected vide order dated 26.05.2022.¶24
Prior proceeding
Opp. party filed O.A. No.279 of 2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack challenging the rejection order dated 26.05.2022, among other prayers.¶17
Prior proceeding
Before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the opp. party was on sanctioned earned leave and sanctioned extension, would have joined on 30.03.2020 but for the nationwide lockdown; accepting counsel's contention based on clause 4 of DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020, it treated him as on duty w.e.f. 25.03.2020; applying column no.4 (deemed joining on expiry of leave with intimation of transport difficulty), it counted his duty period from 28.03.2020.¶28
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application, directing the petitioners to sanction leave for 28.03.2020 to 01.06.2020 strictly per DOPT OM dated 28.07.2020 and 02.06.2020 to 17.08.2020 as per Rules, observing entitlement to benefits arising from the regularization.¶31

Union of India v. Subhash Chander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Subhash Chander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kshyama Tandi Vs State of Odisha

Das Patel Vs State of Odisha

Kharat Nial Vs State of Odisha

Hema Dharua Vs State

Union of India Vs N.Mani

Panposh Sub Divisional House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Odisha