ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The instant writ petition is directed against order dated 9th February, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting – Bilaspur, by which Original Application No.203/00753/2017 filed by respondent No.1 herein has been allowed and order dated 15.11.2016 has been set aside and the period of absence from duty of respondent No.1 from 24.06.2009 to 18.09.2009 and from 17.11.2009 to 18.02.2010 has been directed to be regularized and further been directed to disburse the salary for the said period to respondent No.1.

2. The challenge to the impugned order has been made in following factual backdrop:-

2.1 That respondent No.1 while working as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) at Kendriya Vidyalalya No.1 Raipur run by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short 'KVS') applied for child care leave (for short 'CCL') on 24.02.2009 w.e.f. 22.06.2009 to 30.04.2010 which was not responded by the KVS, Raipur leading to which she filed another application dated 28.03.2009 reiterating her request and the same was allowed by the then Principal and accordingly from 24.06.2009 to 18.09.2009 and from 17.11.2009 to 18.02.2010 she was on CCL. However, by order dated 22.04.2010 & 27.04.2010 the aforesaid period was declared as dies non to which respondent No.1 made representation and ultimately, KVS by order dated 15.11.2016 held that since the aforesaid period has already been declared dies non, therefore, the aforesaid period cannot be regularized and salary cannot be paid to her. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved against that said order, respondent No.1 preferred Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and by the impugned order learned Tribunal allowed the application holding that the child care leave of the applicant has already been sanctioned by the Competent Authority and, therefore, respondent No.1 is entitled for regularization and for salary for the subject period which is sought to be challenged by way of this writ petition.

3. Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the CAT') is absolutely unjustified in holding that for the subject period, respondent No.1 is entitled to be regularized and also entitled for salary for the said period and the said finding recorded by the CAT is absolutely perverse and contrary to the material available on record as respondent No.1 was unauthorizedly absent from duty and the subject period has already been declared dies non by order dated 22.04.2010 & 27.04.2010 and consequently, respondent No.1 is not entitled for regularization as well as salary for the aforesaid period and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Respondent No.1 present in person would support the impugned order and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records with utmost circumspection.

6. Admittedly, the period from 24.06.2009 to 18.09.2009 and 17.11.2009 to 18.02.2010 was declared dies non by KVS vide order dated 22.04.2010 & 27.04.2010 and the representation made by respondent No.1 herein has been rejected vide order dated 15.11.2016 which was challenged before the CAT by filing Original Application in which learned Administrative Tribunal came to the conclusion that for the said period, child care leave of respondent No.1 was duly sanctioned by the Competent Authority / Principal of the School as child care leave and respondent No.1 had already submitted medical document supporting her leave and, therefore, respondent No.1 is entitled for regularization for subject period and also for salary for the subject period and the learned Tribunal has observed as under in paras 6 & 7 while granting the Original Application in its judgment:-

“6. The applicant very well applied for CCL vide her application dated