Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S.SISTANI, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
OM PRAKASH BHATNAGAR – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C) 7019/2015
Decided On : 23.11.2015
Transfer - Railway Department - Indian Railways Medical Manual (Volume-I) Rule 541, Circular dated 10.12.1996 - The court discussed the petitioner's unauthorized absence, the requirement of a fit certificate for resuming duty, and the doctrine of delay and laches in exercising writ jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Railway employee, was transferred to the Rajkot Division and claimed to have become sick during his posting at the Railway Hospital, Bandikui. He resumed duty three days before his retirement and sought pay fixation based on the 5th pay commission. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his plea, leading to subsequent legal actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's unauthorized absence and failure to produce a fit certificate for resuming duty were not in accordance with the Indian Railways Medical Manual. The writ petition was dismissed as barred by delay and laches.
Issues: Unauthorized absence, failure to produce a fit certificate, delay and laches in approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the doctrine of delay and laches, emphasizing the need for timely legal actions and adherence to procedural requirements.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court refrained from imposing costs on the petitioner due to their financial condition.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The petitioner, a Railway employee, was transferred and claimed to have become ill during his posting at Railway Hospital, Bandikui. He resumed duty shortly before retirement and sought pay fixation based on the 5th Pay Commission (!) .
The court found that the petitioner’s unauthorized absence and failure to produce a fitness certificate in accordance with the Indian Railways Medical Manual were not justified. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches (!) .
The petitioner’s absence from duty between 1992 and 1996 was not sanctioned, and there was no record of any leave application or medical leave being approved during this period (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioner claimed to have joined duties three days before his retirement, but this was contested. The court emphasized that mere submission of a joining letter does not automatically establish resumption of duties unless it complies with prescribed procedures and is supported by appropriate medical fitness certificates (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioner’s attempt to justify his absence based on illness was considered vague and unsupported by sufficient medical documentation. The relevant rules specify that a fitness certificate from a Railway Medical Officer is required to resume duty after medical leave exceeding three days (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlighted procedural irregularities, including the absence of proper documentation and failure to follow the prescribed procedures for resuming duty after unauthorized absence or illness (!) (!) (!) .
The court also noted that the petitioner had approached multiple courts over an extended period, with significant delays at each stage, and failed to satisfactorily explain these delays. The doctrine of delay and laches was applied to dismiss the petition (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court observed that the petitioner had initially approached the Rajasthan High Court and later the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the delays in these proceedings were not justified. The petitioner’s late approach to the current court was also found to be unexcused (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the principles of limitation and delay are applicable in writ jurisdiction, especially when the delay is inordinate and unexplained, and that the petitioner’s conduct indicated a lack of diligence (!) (!) (!) .
Due to the cumulative findings—unauthorized absence, procedural lapses, lack of proper documentation, and unexplained delay—the court dismissed the writ petition and refrained from imposing costs considering the petitioner’s financial condition (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 15.07.2008.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the Railway Department on 05.01.1972 as a field worker in Medical Department of Western Railway, Jaipur. In the year 1989, the petitioner was transferred to the Rajkot Division. This order of transfer was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal stayed the order of transfer although subsequently in the year 1992 the OA filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was posted at the Railway Hospital, Bandikui, he became sick on 07.04.1992 and during the period of his sickness, the petitioner was transferred to Western Railway, Rajkot Division in the year 1992. The petitioner was able to resume his duties only on 28.11.1996. The petitioner claims to have performed his duties upto 30.11.1996 i.e. his date of superannuation. The retirement order of the petitioner was passed on 16.06.2000 fixing the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the revised pay scale of the 5th pay commission. It is also claimed that the Competent Authority did not decide the period of his sickness i.e. between the years 1992 to 1996. The petitioner made a representation in the year 2005 which was not considered by the respondents forcing him to file the OA No. 2344/2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the year 2007, the OA filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 15.07.2008. After the OA was dismissed, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court against the order of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2008. The writ petition was dismissed in September, 2012 on the ground of jurisdiction. The petitioner thereafter withdrew the writ petition and filed the present writ petition in February, 2015.
3. The main thrust of arguments of Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that after his long leave of absence for almost four years, the petitioner joined his department three days prior to his retirement, his joining was accepted and once joining was accepted, the pay fixation of the petitioner was bound to be fixed based on the 5th pay commission. Counsel submits that the petitioner could not seek the remedies available to him in the year 1996 as his retirement order was passed after four years of his retirement in the year 2000.
4. Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this writ petition firstly on the ground that the same is barred by delay and laches. Even on the merits, Mr. Jagjit Singh submits that the Tribunal has returned a finding that the leave of the petitioner was not a sanctioned leave and the period of leave of the petitioner has not been regularized. Mr. Jagjit Singh further submits that the plea raised by the petitioner that he was unwell is a false plea not supported by documents. It is also contended that merely because the petitioner submitted a letter of joining that by itself is not a joining in the eyes of law. He submits that if the stand of the petitioner is to be believed then the petitioner should have annexed the copies of his medical record in terms of Rule 514 of the Indian Railways Medical Manual (Volume-I).
5. Counsel submits that even during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has disclosed the illness of the petitioner as heart ailment. He submits that a vague plea raised with regard to the illness of the petitioner cannot justify his unauthorized absence of almost four years. It is thus contended that the joining letter would not confer any rights upon the petitioner as the joining letter cannot be treated as a joining letter in accordance with law and by simply forwarding the letter does not amount to resuming his duties.
6. Mr. Jagjit Singh also submits that as notic
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
