SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4882

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, J
Rajesh Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur – Respondent
Original Application No. 30 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri N P Singh
For the Respondents: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma

The withholding of HLAP commutation due to lack of medical certificates was ruled illegal as proper leave was sanctioned, and principles of natural justice were breached.

Headnote:(A) Indian Railway Establishment Code - Para 519 and 520 - Recovery of withheld retiral dues - Applicant aggrieved by withholding of HLAP commutation, amounting to Rs. 2,50,437/-, following order enforcing recovery due to non-submission of required medical certificates - Applicant was sanctioned leave and was entitled to commutation as per rules. (Paras 14-17)

(B) Natural Justice - Due process not followed, as no opportunity or show cause notice was given to applicant prior to recovery - Accordingly, court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to release withheld amounts with interest. (Paras 16-17)

Table of Content
1. the applicant seeks relief against withheld retiral dues. (Para 3 , 4)
2. proper leave was sanctioned; thus, hlap commutation was warranted. (Para 5 , 14)
3. respondents failed to follow necessary procedures regarding sick certificates. (Para 8 , 9 , 11)
4. procedural improperities led to the decision being quashed. (Para 15 , 16)
5. the court quashed the order and mandated repayment of dues. (Para 17)

ORDER

Shri N P Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M K Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“i. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dt 19.08.2021 issued by the Respondent no. 3 (Annexure – 1 to compilation no. I)

ii. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the entire arrears of retiral dues including commutation of HLAP of the applicant deducted by the respondents along with interest thereupon since 31.08.2021 upto the date of payment.

iii. To grant any other relief for which the applicant is entitled for in the circumstances of the case, including consequential benefits.

iv. To award the cost of the present OA in favour of the applicant.”

3. A compendium of the instant controversy is that the applicant, who is now a retired person, is aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2021 issued by the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, North Western Railway, Jaipur by way of which applicant’s commutation of HLAP amounting to Rs. 2,50,437/- has been withheld. The said amount was said to have been deducted from the retirement benefits of the applicant. The aforesaid order states that since no commutation of leave is payable to the applicant, therefore his period of leave (HLAP) from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 may be treated as without commutation and accordingly his settlement may be made. Applicant has contended that it is true that he went on leave but he had no idea that the same was never commutated and it came to his knowledge much after his retirement and further the aforesaid impugned order was never communicated to him. Thus, attributing the aforesaid order as illegal and arbitrary, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the same along with a direction to the respondents to pay the entire arrears of his retiral dues including commutation of HLAP deducted by the respondents along with interest thereupon since 31.08.2021 upto the date of payment. On the contrary, respondents have contended that the applicant did not avail the leave in accordance with rules and failed to furnish requisite certificates before the authority despite being asked for the same time and again. Furthermore, his leave was never commuted and accordingly, recoveries have been made and that the impugned order is absolutely legal and issued in accordance with rules.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially appointed on 12.10.1983 as Signal Inspector (Group C) in Central Railway, Jabalpur wherefrom he was transferred to Northern Railway in 1987. Thereafter, he was promoted as Group ‘B’ officer after qualifying 30% LDC examination and was posted as Assistant Signal and Telecom Manager (ASTE) in Northern Railway, Moradabad. While working as Deputy Chief Safety Officer (S&T), the applicant went on two days sanctioned leave for 30th and 31st March, 2021 and left for Kanpur due to illness of his son who was suffering from Covid. While at Kanpur, the applicant on 31st March developed urination problem due to enlarge prostrate which required immediate medical attention and as such on 01st April 2021 itself the applicant consulted private medical practitioner who advised complete rest. At that time, there was no railway hospital in the nearby place from applicant’s pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top