Aragada Simhachalam Naidu Vs Union of India and Others

Present: Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Komal Preet Chauhan, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners (in CWP-18148-2026) and for respondents No. 1 to 3 (in CWP-20438-2026).

¶18

Mr. Rahul Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ayush Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP-20438-2026).

¶19

Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 (in CWP-18148-2026) & for respondent No. 5 (in CWP-20438-2026).

¶20

*****

¶21

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL)

¶22

CM-9775-CWP-2026 IN CWP-18148-2026 (O&M)

¶23

(i ) Application for placing on record some additional documents as Annexure P-/1 (colly.) with the main petition is allowed, as prayed for. The aforesaid documents are taken on record as Annexure P-/1 (colly.),

¶24

NITIN 2026.07.29 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

- 2-

¶26

CM-9775-CWP-2026 IN/AND CWP-18148-2026 (O&M) CM-10830-CWP-2026 IN/AND CWP-20438-2026 (O&M)

¶27

subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶28

CM-10830-CWP-2026 IN CWP-20438-2026

¶29

(i ) Application for leave to file the present petition without Number of Roll of Advocates, is allowed, as prayed for.

¶30

CWP-18148-2026 (O&M) & CWP-20438-2026 (O&M)

¶31

1 . Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that, keeping in view the order passed by the Tribunal, whereby respondent No. 1-Meena Kumari (in CWP-18148-2026) has been allowed to continue at the present place of posting till the ongoing academic sessions of respondent No. 1’s son finishes, the present petitions may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed any further so as to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the liberty granted by the Tribunal.

¶32

2 . Though respondent No. 1 has been allowed to continue at the present place of posting, the officer who had already been transferred and joined at Chandigarh, i.e. the petitioner-Aragada Simhachalam Naidu (in CWP-20438-2026) will not be displaced.

¶33

3 . In case any salary admissible to respondent No. 1-Meena Kumari has not been released so far, the same shall be released without any further delay, so that respondent No. 1 does not suffer, as a Government employee is only dependent upon her/his salary in order to live a dignified life and, in the absence of such payment, there can be disastrous consequences for the life of such an employee, who is solely dependent upon her/his salary.

¶34

4 . Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate, who is counsel for

¶35

NITIN 2026.07.29 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CM-9775-CWP-2026 IN/AND CWP-18148-2026 (O&M) - 3- CM-10830-CWP-2026 IN/AND CWP-20438-2026 (O&M)

¶37

respondent No. 1-Meena Kumari (in CWP-18148-2026) & for respondent No. 5 (in CWP-20438-2026), submits that, in case any effort is made by the respondent to claim Child Care Leave, the same be considered in accordance with law and be allowed in case found permissible in order to streamline the functioning of the Department, keeping in view the fact that there are two officers against one post, and the order passed by the Tribunal be modified accordingly.

¶38

4 . Learned counsel for Union of India submits that such application if made will be considered sympathetically and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶39

5 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the present writ petitions be disposed of in view of the observations of the parties recorded hereinbefore.

¶40