Facts
R. Subramanian, an employee of the Puducherry Housing Board, was dismissed on 10 May 2010 and reinstated by an order dated 13 December 2012.
Source reference: p. 3; p. 4The reinstatement order set aside the dismissal but directed that the period from dismissal until joining duty be treated as extraordinary leave (EOL).
Source reference: p. 3; p. 4Subramanian accepted that order, rejoined service, retired on 31 January 2013, and received his retirement benefits.
Source reference: p. 2–3; p. 5He later sought salary and benefits for the period of absence; the Board rejected his request on 4 July 2017.
Source reference: p. 2–3; p. 5He then filed this writ petition seeking to quash that rejection and obtain payment for the disputed period.
Source reference: p. 2–3; p. 5Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to salary and benefits for the period treated as EOL under the reinstatement order dated 13 December 2012.
Source reference: p. 2; p. 4–52. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s later representations gave rise to a cause of action when he had not challenged the reinstatement order.
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
Rule 26 of the Puducherry Housing Board’s applicable service rules adopts, where the Board’s rules make no provision, the Fundamental Rules, Supplementary Rules, Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, and related government instructions, subject to specified adjustments in the exercise of powers.
Source reference: p. 4–5Rule 40 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules provides that a government servant on EOL is not entitled to leave salary.
Source reference: p. 5The court also applied the principle that rejection of subsequent representations does not, by itself, create a cause of action where the underlying order giving rise to the claim has not been challenged.
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The reinstatement order expressly classified the period from dismissal until the petitioner’s return to duty as EOL.
Source reference: p. 4Under the rules applicable to the Board, EOL carried no entitlement to leave salary.
Source reference: p. 5The petitioner had accepted the reinstatement order, rejoined service, and retired without challenging that order; his later representations could not provide a basis to reopen its terms.
Source reference: p. 5The court therefore found no legal ground to interfere with the Board’s rejection of his claim.
Source reference: p. 5–6Holding
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed salary and benefits, as the relevant period had been treated as EOL under an unchallenged reinstatement order.
It dismissed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
R.Subramanian, (DECEASED)vsThe Secretary to Government,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
