9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... getting himself medically examined. The petitioner in above noted circumstances wants benefit of continuous service, without having worked. Thus, equity also does not favour the case of the petitioner. - Decided against the petitioner employee. - WRIT-A No. - 17303 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2013 - Vineet Saran And Ajai Lamba,JJ. For the Petitioner : A. K. Trivedi For the Respondent : A. S. G. I.,B. K. Singh Raghuvanshi,S. C. ORDER 1. Heard Shri A.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. This petition prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing orders dated 3.9.2010 and 22.2.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No.604 of 2008 and Review Application No.64 of 2010, placed on record as Annexures 6 and 9 respectively. The petition, among other prayers, also prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of provisional pension to the petitioner. 3. The case has a chequered history which has not been given in the impugned order. Facts as they emerg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Bihar, on 5.5.2002 and the said letter was served on the petitioner on 14.5.2002. The petitioner was asked to submit his pension papers, however, pension was not paid and, therefore, the petitioner filed Original Application No.305 of 2003 seeking direction to the respondents to release pensionary benefits. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 1.5.2003 directing the respondents to take into account the representation made by the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of the order. 9. Respondent no.3 (Secretary, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi), vide order dated 4.8.2003, took a decision that the period of medical leave from 23.7.1990 to 13.3.1997, which exceeds five years, could only be sanctioned by the President of India under the rules. 10. The petitioner again approached the Tribunal by means of filing Original Application No.751 of 2004, aggrieved by order dated 4.8.2003. The said original application was finally disposed of vide order dated 16.9.2005 directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation, on which respondent no.3 was directed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he did not appear before the Medical Board. iii. As per the rule, leave beyond 5 years is granted in exceptional circumstances, which do not seem to exist in the present case. 2. In view of the above position, there is no merit to sanction leave to Shri Balak Ram for such a long period of over 6-1/2 years. Hence, his leave application for the period 23.7.1990 to 13.3.1997 has been rejected by the Competent Authority. You are requested to take further action accordingly." 13. The petitioner yet again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of filing Original Application No.604 of 2008 challenging order dated 10.12.2007 and order dated 7.2.2008. Vide order dated 7.2.2008, the representation made by the petitioner had been rejected, after calling for the records. Relevant portion of order dated 7.2.2008 (placed on record as Annexure-2) reads as under: "As regards the Point (ii) above, the leave application of Shri Balak Ram for the period from 23.07.1990 to 13.03.1997, Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 provides that "unless the President, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case otherwise determines, no Government servant shall be granted leave o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he pleadings has not been denied by the petitioner. The fact that in 1994, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Jamshedpur had asked the petitioner to join his duties within fifteen days, has not been disputed. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner did not join duties and, rather, submitted leave application. 19. This Court has taken into account the fact that leave application was made by the petitioner on the pretext that he was ill, however, at that point in time, relevant medical certificates were not appended with the leave application. 20. This Court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner was directed to appear before the Civil Surgeon, Farrukhabad, however, the petitioner did not present himself for his medical examination. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never summoned by the Civil Surgeon, Farrukhabad, cannot be accepted for the reason that it is the petitioner, who had applied for medical leave and, therefore, was required to give evidence of the fact that the petitioner was, in fact, ailing and, therefore, his leave was required to be sanctioned. The respondent employer asked the petitioner to appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
