Remarkable Judgment in r/o availing CCL by women employees
Care No: OA No: 60/00671/2014 dt. 31.07.2015.
Applicant: Smt. Anu Sharma
Ex-Senior Lab Technician, Dept of Advanced Pediatric Center Post Graduate Institute of Medical Exam & Research – Panchkula (HR)
Post graduate of Institute of Medical Exam & Research Chandigarh.
The applicant was working in PGIMER from 01.05.97 to 21.11.2012 as Lab Technician. She was granted CCL from 12.07.2010 to 09.1.2011. She had applied for extn of CCL from 10.01.2011 to 08.07.2012. But it was refused she needed CCL to look after her son suffering on a/c of continuous coughing & vomiting her request to grant at least leave without pay was also rejected. But applicant could not join duty. Respondents issued her rule 14 charge sheet on 21.09.2011. On receipt of charge sheet, applicant had resumedd duty & worked upto 14.05.2012.
Thereafter, she remained on sanctioned leave from 15.05.2012 to 31.08.2012 & again on leave from 14.09.2012 to 15.09.2012. Then she applied for CCL from 17.09.2012, which was refused.
After rule 14 enquiry was over, she was terminated by order dt 24.04.2014. Hence applicant had filed this OA.
The applicant pleaded that now and then, she was applying CCL or other Kinds of leave and added that she never absented herself unauthorisely. She also argued that she could not rejoin duty. When leave was refused, due to her son’s sickness condition only.
Also Read - Expected DA from January 2017
Also Read : Draft minutes of Allowance Committee – DOP&T Specific allowances
ii) Prosecution side contented that applicant ought to have rejoined duty when leave applied for was refused.
iii) Judgement has been delivered on 31.07.2015 as follows.
We are constrained to observe that the PGIMER authorities appear to have taken an unduly harsh view in the matter. The applicant son was apparently suffering from a serious illness and the applicant had applied for the CCL due to this.CCL of 2 years has been allowed to women employees as a welfare measure keeping in view recommendations of 6th CPC and sympathetic view should be taken where a woman employee applied for such leave. Staff shortage can always be addressed through short term appointments and the institute such as PGIMER as the autonomy/authority to make arrangements. Hence memo of charges dated 21.09.2011 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service and treat the period for which she was not on duty as leave of the kind due/ leave without pay as may be appropriate. Action in this regard may be completed within 45 days from the date of a certified copy of this order being served upon the respondents.
Finally, she got reinstatement by set asiding the termination ordered to her. It is good judgement to be followed by one and all courts.