CWP No.21155 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.21155 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.11.2011 Harsh Inder Sharma ... Petitioner versus Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present : Mr. K.L.Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Permod Kohli, J.(Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 23.03.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh whereby the Tribunal while refusing to set aside the order of termination of the petitioner herein directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of the leave to which she may be found entitled to and pass a speaking order after affording her an opportunity of being heard. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner was an employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya and posted at Dharamshala (H.P.). It is an admitted case of the petitioner that she obtained leave from 26.10.2008 to 30.10.2008. The petitioner applied for extension of leave number of times on the ground of illness of his minor son, however, the request of the petitioner for grant of leave including 180 days' Child Care Leave was CWP No.21155 of 2011 (O&M) -2- declined from time to time. The petitioner was issued notices by the employer for joining the duty. The petitioner did not join the duty on the ground of continue ill-health of her son. The petitioner also requested for her transfer anywhere in North India. This request was also declined. The petitioner was finally ordered to be terminated vide order dated 03.08.2009 for remaining absent from duty. It is this order, which was impugned by the petitioner in OA No.1036/CH/2009 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on consideration of the respective pleadings of the parties and the pleas raised therein prima facie found that the claim of the petitioner for leave should have been considered. Even though respondents pleaded that the termination of the petitioner was pursuant to stipulations contained in her appointment letter, which inter alia provide for one month's notice for dispensing with the services. Finally, the Tribunal disposed of the OA with the directions as noticed hereinabove. Being dis-satisfied with the directions of the Tribunal, petitioner filed a review application No.31 of 2011 before the Tribunal. One of the plea raised was that where the employer decided to terminate the services of the petitioner without any notice, the employee is entitled to one month's salary in lieu of the period of notice as per stipulation contained in the appointment order. The Tribunal vide its order dated 11.08.2011 rectified its order and directed the respondents to make the payment of a sum equivalent to the amount of her pay and allowances for the period of notice within a period of two months while retaining the directions contained in its original order dated 23.03.2011. Respondents considered the directions of Tribunal contained CWP No.21155 of 2011 (O&M) -3- in order dated 23.03.2011 and passed a speaking order dated 15.06.2011 (Annexure P-8) whereby they declined the leave to the petitioner as directed by the Tribunal. The petitioner has assailed the original order of the Tribunal dated 23.03.2011, order dated 11.08.2011 passed in review application and order dated 15.06.2011 passed by the respondents as per directions of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since challenge is to the orders dated 23.03.2011 and dated 11.08.2011 passed by Tribunal, preset petition is maintainable before this Court notwithstanding the fact that the respondents have already implemented the judgment of the Tribunal and passed a fresh order. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We are of the considered view that the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the fresh order dated 15.06.2011 passed by the respondents before the Tribunal, as it has given a fresh cause of action to the petitioner. While granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order before the Tribunal, we refrain ourselves from interfering in this petition at this stage. Petition stands disposed of. (Permod Kohli) Judge November 16, 2011 (Tejinder Singh Dhindsa) sonia Judge