M.B.S.Sai Vs Union of India

M.B.S.Sai, S/o. M.S.R.P.S.Sharma, age 58^{years, Occ: Depot Superinten{e.nt} (Group-C), O/o. Joint Director, Govt.^-Medical Stor.es Depot, Hyderabad.^Fl/o' H. ruo.' Af ,' Cpnn Quarters, lndra NaEar, Gachibowli,^Hyderabad'

¶10

AND

¶11

Union of lndia, rept. by its Secretary,^{Ministry of Health and Family Welfare} Department, Govemment of lndia, Nirman^{Bhavan, New Delhi.}

¶12

The Joint Director, Govemment lvledical Stores^{Depot, Ministryof Health and} Family Welfare Behind ESI Hospital, S.R.^{Nagar, Hyderabad.}

¶13

PONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased} to issue a Writ or Order or Direction^{more partiCular one in the nature of Writ of} CERTIORARI calling for the lmpugned^PART ll^{DEPOT ORDER No.135,dt} 23.10.2021, No.EsI/MBSS/2O22-2314569, dt^{24.6.2022and CircularDated} 2.11.2020 and consequential^judgment of the^{Hon'ble central Administrative} Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad^{in O.A.No.O2l5B1l2O22,dt 16.10.2025} rejecting the representation of the^petitioner dl^{27.10.2O2O,wherein the 2nd} respondent has violated the instructions issued^{by the Ministry and treating the} lock down^period and 50 % Staff to work^{from home duringCOVID 19 as Earned} Leave and the same is illegal, arbitrary,^{unconstitutionaland violative of principles} of natural^justice and violative of^{Articles'14, 16 and 21 of lhe Constitutionof lndia} and set aside the same and consequently^{direct the respondentsto treat152 days} as on d uty/work from home, by taking^{into consideration the representationdt}

¶15

27.10.2020 submitted by the petitioner stating that he may be permitted to attend office on alternate days or with the 50% Attendance as per the DOPT Order No. F.No. 110131912014-Estt, dt 7.10.2020, on the principles of established norms, procedure and justice in the interest of justice.

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to deduct the 152 days absence, from Earned Leaves, by suspending the lmpugned PART ll DEPOT ORDER No. 135, dt 23.10.2021, No. ESUMBSS/2022- 2314569, dl 24.6.2022 and Circular Dated 2.11.2020 and consequential^judgment of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A.No.02158112022, dt 16.10.2025 in the interest of justice pending disposal of main writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.BHARAT SHAH

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO,

¶19

DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

_-

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGA}.{A . AT I{YDERABAD

¶23

The Hon'ble The ChiefJustice Sri Apatesh Kumar Singh

¶24

and

¶25

The Hon'ble Sd lustice G.M.Mohiuddin

¶26

Writ Petition No.4020 of 2026

Dated:11.02.2026

Between:

M.B.S.Sai

...Petitioner

and Union of India, rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Flealth and Family Velfare Department Government of India, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi and anothet.

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

-Qrdcr:

¶34

Heard Mr. NI.Bharat Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI)

¶35

appearing for respondent No.1- Union of India.

¶36

'fhe pcriod of abscnce of petitioner-for 155 days, without any application for leavc, was treated as Extra Ordinary Leave (E,OL) by the employer, which apgtieved the petitioner to approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short 'CAI) in O.A.No.027/581,/2022. Learned CAT did not find favour with the plea of the petitioner (applicant) as there was no violation of any instructions by the respondents and the petitioner had not made any application for leave during the period of his absence. Learned CAT felt that the respondents have shown humanitadan

( (

..", ..

t tt

approach and taken a lenient view and rcgularized his absence under EL categoly of his leave account as due and admissible follorving the OM dated 07.06.2021,.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if an opportunity is allowed to the petitioner to make a representation for converting the period of his absence treated as EOL to leave otherrvise admissible under any other heads, the grievance of the petitioner would be met.

¶42

Learned DSGI submits that if such a reprcsentation is made by the petitioner, it would be considered by the respondents-authorities in accordance with law.

¶43

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstAnces, petitioner is granted liberty to make i represenrarion before the respondents_ authorities for treating his period of absencc as any other admissible leave. If such a representation is made, the respondents-authorities

¶44

would consider it in accordance rvith larv within a rcasonable time.

¶45