. @ 7 aim EFFm "Um gsmrfam arfsmm Twig? $1 wag? 82mm ——: -: a: .—: _:-= _-_-..: ...: —: ~_ -_—, —= n: —.: .= _._ _._ ——-__= «X,» Wa‘% aaT nWam’? a‘ro af’r ywomo war m WT Wm mam‘iu Eré‘aga @mzT fam - waafawfa . . . yTEIfaW faaa I. Em%a‘7rgz straw aTTT—a'wra afaa mfanami afma EIE': frr$r an'I warm fawn w§m mm frag? Ew'im 2.. gmzTa mg'cra mfaara‘? fawn? WQrm mm rfo Vfaaim? fara fau‘ma uf‘mak wag? 3503108 3. Wara aEmai any?! 3iTfaaTa% fama Imafawfa faaT—vmafanfd 35Wm3 aaamm m mam Hat kw uTrT 19 gmafaw yfwm ancafamq 1985 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOI-IAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. writ Petition is; No. 3764/2005 Smt. Lata Goswami Vetsus PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Petition ujA 226 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Shn' VG: 'Tamaskar, counsel for the petitioner. Shh' Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for tho State] respondents ‘ ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 6.7.20 10) 1. By this peu'tion, the petitioner .calls in question legality and validity of onier dated 10.1.2000 (Annexure'A—l) and orders dated 2.5.2000 [Annexure A-2 (A) 8a A-2 (3)], whereby respondents have passed orders with regard to the period of ahsenee of the petitioner. M 2. Supmission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that While considering the petitioner’s application for grant of leave in respect of the period of absence, in purported compliance of the order dated 14th September, 1999 passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2406/ 1995, the Assistant Commissioner has not taken into consideration the relevant aspect and has passed the order ignoring provision contained in Rule 30 85 38‘of the M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (for short “the Rules of 1977”). It is submitted that ' as the petitioner proceeded on maternity leave from 3.7. 1987, she was entitled to 90 days leave along with leave salary equal to pay drawn immediately befom proceeding on leave and them was no occasion to treat period of 90 days from the date she proceeded on maternity leave, as leave without due. Other submission is that even in cases where leave is granted as leave not due under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1977 as the rule permits grant of half pay leave, there must exist reasons for not granting even half pay leave and treating the entire period as leave Without pay. It is also submitted that in the spirit of the order passed by the Tribunal earlier, wherein respondents themselves stated that the .matter required to be referred to Head of the Department taking into consideration‘that a long period of 7 years was to be regularized, the highest authority in the department ought to have considered the case for grant of leave. . On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that in so far as period hem 16.10.1987 to 13.4.1988 is concerned, the same has been regularized as leave without pay, as no leave was due to the petitioner and therefore the same has been regularized by taking recourse to the provision contained in Rule 30 of the Rules of 1977. Learned counsel. further submits that petitioner cannot claim leave as of right in view of the provision contained in Rule 6 of the Rdles, of 1977. Petitioner had proceeded on maternity leave on 3.7.1987, therefore she was entitled to maximum of 90 days as maternity leave, and therefore, petitioner cannot claim maternity leave in excess of 90 days. As she proceeded on 3.7.1987, at the most 90 days of leave as maternity leave could be granted and therefore in respect of period subsequent to 16. 10. 1987, it could not be regularized as maternity leave. .It is further submitted that taldng into consx'leration various aspects, the authority came to conclusion that m! h -: period &om 16.10.1987 to 13.4.l988 should be regularized as leave without pay and therefore no illegality has been committed. 4. I have heani learned counsel for the parties and perused the moords. i \ 5. After taking into consideration the submission made by the parties, I i i find that While regularizing the pen'od mm 16.10.1987 to 13.4.1988, the authon'ty has Heated the same as leave without pay. The justincation advanced that since the period has been Ie'gularized under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1977 as leave not due, therefore no pay could be granted, cannot be accepted. A perusal of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3O of the Rules of 1977 provides that leave not due shall be limited to the half pay leave. This clearly shows that the authority had discretion to grant leave not due as half pay leave. Either h‘om the impugned order or h‘om the return of the respondents, it is not disclosed as to on what basis the authority decided not to grant pay and regularize the period as leave without pay. A , 6. It is to be noted that the petitioner had proceeded on maternity leave on 3.7. 1987 and later on application for extension of leave was made on the ground of illness. The authority has proceeded on an as‘sumption, though erroneous, that in all cases of grant of leave not due under Rule 30, no pay could be granted. In the opinion of this Court, the said decision'to grant leave without pay appears to be without any justidcation. Though it is true that leave cannot be claimed as of right and it is the discretion of the authorities to if, regularize the leave in accordance with the provisions contained in the Ruleslof 1977, yet the same is required to be exercised on just and relevant reasons and not capriciously. iw;)l 7. Acconiingly, I am of the opinion that in so far as decision of the authority to glam leave without pay in mspect o'f period from 16.10.1987 to 13.4.1988 is concerned, it requires fresh exercise in the light of the obselvations of this Court keeping in View of the provisions contained in Rule 30 (1) (b) ofthe Rules of 1977. 8. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though respondents have regulaiized the period hom 14.4.1988 to 15.10.1989 and 10.8.1991 to 10.10.1994, as also 11.10.1994 to 12.10.1995 as service period and extraordinaiy leave respectively, the salary and increments of these periods have not been granted to the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the pleading in this regard in the petition are not clear and speciiic, this aspect has not been dealt with in the return. However, While considering the case of the petitioner in the light of the order of this Court, in respect of period from 16.10.1987 to 13.4.1988,_this aspect shall also be taken into consideration and decision in accordance with law would be taken. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. 11. In so far as decision With regard to period nom 16.10.987 to " 1 18.4.1988 as leave without pay is concerned, the same is declared illegal and ishereby set aside. The Competent Authority shall reconsider the entire aspects of the matter in the light of the observations made by this Court and in accordance with the provisions contained in the M.P. I C.G. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977. 12. It is expected that the decision with regard to the aforesaid period shall be taken within the reasonable period. Sd/ l . [g )udge L. Praveen sir 11