Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 1593
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar and M.M.S.Bedi JJ.
R.N.Sangwan
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 5959 of 2006,
Decided On : APRIL 21, 2006
The absence of a rule or judgment/law permitting the counting of extraordinary leave for the grant of senior scale influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Extraordinary Leave - Grant of Senior Scale - The court refused to count the period of extraordinary leave for the purposes of granting senior scale, stating that there is no rule permitting such counting.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an order refusing to count the period of extraordinary leave for the purposes of granting senior scale. They were working as lecturers in the respondent department and had taken extraordinary leave for varying periods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no rule permitting the counting of extraordinary leave for the grant of senior scale. As a result, the petition was dismissed as wholly misconceived.
Issues: The issue was whether the period of extraordinary leave could be counted for the purposes of granting senior scale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of any rule or judgment/law permitting the counting of extraordinary leave for the grant of senior scale.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as wholly misconceived.
M. M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 13/27. ,6.2003 ( Annexure P.4) refusing to count the period of extra ordinary leave for the purposes of granting senior scale. A further direction has been sought to the respondents to count the period of extra ordinary leave for the grant of senior scale. The petitioners have been working in the respondent department on the post of lecturers.
2. Their initial appointments were adhoc which was followed by regularisation on different dates. The total period of extra ordinary leave has been depicted in para 2 of the petition which ranges from 446 days to 122 days.
3. When the matter came up for consideration on 20.4.2006, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested for a days adjournment to address arguments on the question as to how the petitioners were entitled to count the period of extra ordinary leave for the purposes of senior scale because ordinarily the extra ordinary leave does not bear any increments. However, on the resumed date of hearing the learned counsel has failed to appear.
4. After perusing the averments made in the writ petition alongwith the annexures, we are of the view that there is no rule which may permit counting the period of extra ordinary leave for the purposes of granting senior scale. In the absence of any such rule or judgement/law, we are unable to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition. Therefore, the writ petition is wholly mis-conceived and the same is dismissed.
