Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Sunil Arora – Appellant
Versus
National Human Rights Commission – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidated hearing of similar oas on leave encashment denial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. applicants claim fresh 300-day encashment post-absorption ignoring prior. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. respondents defend 300-day lifetime cap per rules and clarifications. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. rejoinder distinguishes re-employment from absorption cases. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 5. nhrc service conditions align with ccs leave rules cap. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. dop&t clarifications subordinate; policy reverted post-audit. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. executive oms cannot override statutory 300-day total limit. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-
The facts and issues in the captioned OAs are stated to be similar, the grounds urged on behalf of the parties are common and the relief sought by the applicants are same. In view of the background of such admitted position and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the captioned OAs are being heard and decided together by the present common order. However, for the sake of convenience, OA No.3811/2022 has been treated as a le
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
