Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4483
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1917/2021
Reserved on :- 10.02.2026
Pronounced on:- 07.04.2026
Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Brij Mohan Mittal
(Senior Citizen)
S/O Sh. (late) Rameshwar Dass Mittal
2404 Sector-16,
Faridabad-121002
(Haryana)
...Applicant
By Advocate(s): Applicant in person
Versus
Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(through Its Chairman)
Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Ispat Bhavan,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
…Respondents
By Advocate(s): Mr. Dhananjay Rana
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Applicant in person
For the Respondents: Dhananjay Rana
An employee cannot claim quarantine or special leave for outstation visits not mandated by official duty, particularly when failing to satisfy the specific conditions stipulated in organizational leave policies and circulars.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Leave Rules - Quarantine leave, Joining leave, and Casual leave - Claim for encashment of leave and restoration of deducted leave - Applicant claimed entitlement to various types of leave due to transfer and COVID-19 pandemic protocols - Tribunal assessed eligibility for quarantine leave and journey/joining leave under relevant service rules - Held, claim is unsupported by material evidence and inconsistent with service circulars governing leave eligibility - Casual leave claims rejected for exceeding the permissible limit per spell - Unauthorized outstation travel for official non-essential tasks does not qualify for quarantine leave benefits - O.A. dismissed as devoid of merit. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, an employee of the respondent organization, retired on superannuation on 30th June 2021. Following a transfer in 2020, he applied for various categories of leave, including journey, joining, and quarantine leave, which were not sanctioned by the respondent. Instead, the respondent deducted the leave from his earned leave account, leading to pecuniary loss. The applicant argued that his travel and quarantine were necessary due to pandemic restrictions and vigilance requirements, whereas the respondent maintained that the applicant failed to follow company rules and that many of his claims were self-contradictory.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims regarding journey and joining leave were inconsistent with previous pleadings made in earlier proceedings. Regarding quarantine and casual leave, the Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to meet the specific criteria outlined in the company’s circulars, and the application for such leave was filed post-retirement for non-essential journeys. The court upheld the respondent’s position regarding leave entitlement and procedural non-compliance.
Issues: Whether the applicant was legally entitled to claim various types of leave including quarantine and joining leave, and whether the respondent’s decision to deduct leaves was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that leave entitlements must strictly adhere to governing company circulars and regulations. In the absence of evidence supporting the necessity of personal travel for official tasks, or compliance with specific quarantine conditions, the employee cannot claim statutory leave benefits for unauthorized or personal outstation visits.
Result: O.A. dismissed.
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
By way of the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a) To pass an order to allow leaves i.e. Joining leave, Journey leave, Quarantine leave, Casual leave, as applied by applicant.
b) Also direct to respondent, not to deduct leave for Sunday & Holidays, as per policy of company
c) To pass an order for encashment of these leave, as he is already retired on dt. 30-6-2021.
D Suitably punish respondent and allow OA with cost, interest and damages.
e) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case & in the interest of the justice.”
2. Brief facts of the present case are as under:
2.1. The applicant has been employed with the respondent since 1991 and has performed his duties diligently, exposing corruption within the organization and retired on superannuation on 30th June 2021.
2.2. Due to his honesty, senior officers allegedly became biased and subjected him to harassment, frequent transfers, and denial of promotions and facilities. Since 2012, the applicant claims he has been threatened for filing complaints and exposing corrupt practices, including complaints to high authorities in July 2020. The present application challenges the unauthorized deduction of various types of leave without the applicant’s consent.
2.3. Vide office order dated 30.06.2020, the applicant was transferred from the post of Manager, ISP Burnpur to the post of Manager, SSP Salem. The applicant joined service after the said transfer at Salem on 24th August 2020. The applicant applied for leave under the head (i) Journey leave; (ii) Quarantine leave and casual leave (CL), as follows:-
| From date | to date | Type of leave applied | withdrawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01-07-2020 | 11-07-2020 | Journey Leave | EL |
| 12-07-2020 | 18-07-2020 | Joining Leave | EL |
| 12-10-2020 | 25-10-2020 | Quarantine Leave | CommL |
| 15-11-2020 | 29-11-2020 | Quarantine Leave | CommL |
| 24-12-2020 | 09-01-2021 | Quarantine Leave | CommL |
| 18-01-2021 | 31-01-2021 | Quarantine Leave | CommL |
| 27-03-2021 | 03-04-2021 | CL | CommL |
| 05-04-2021 | 20-04-2021 | Quarantine Leave | CommL |
| 21-04-2021 | 06-05-2021 | Quarantine Leave | CommL |
| 07-05-2021 | 24-05-2021 | Quarantine Leave | Pending |
| 25-05-2021 | 10-06-2021 | Quarantine Leave | Pending |
| 11-06-2021 | 15-06-2021 | CL | Pending |
| 16-06-2021 | 29-06-2021 | Quarantine Leave | Pending |
2.4. The respondent did not sanctioned the leave under the heads applied for by the applicant and instead made deductions from the head of earned leave from his leave account, which resulted in pecuniary loss to him. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the applicant filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
2.5. It is the case of the applicant that he is entitled to six days’ joining leave and ten days’ journey leave, as Salem is 3820 kilometers away from ISP Burnpur, and this was during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown when trains were cancelled.
2.6. Further, vide order dated 12.02.2021, the respondent asked the applicant to submit his 30 years property records for vigilance clearance before his superannuation on 30.06.2021. The applicant was required to travel for submission of the said property records before retirement and underwent mandatory quarantine at multiple locations as per government guidelines, thus, he visited his hometown at Faridabad and as per state government policy, he underwent 14 days’ home quarantine at both stations, i.e., from 07.05.2021 to 24.05.2021 and from 25.05.2021 to 10.06.2021, along with quarantine from 15.06.2021 to 29.06.2021 at Salem.
2.7. Despite eligibility, quarantine leave was not properly granted and was instead treated as other forms of leave. Following his transfer from Burnpur to Salem, the applicant claims entitlement to joining and journey leave due to long-distance travel during COVID-19 restrictions. However, earned leave was deducted instead of granting joining and journey leave, which is alleged to be
