Authorities cannot suo motu debit earned or half-pay leave; non-joining warrants extraordinary leave.

The applicant, a Central Government employee posted at the Regional Research Institute of Unani Medicine, Aligarh, was transferred to CRU, Burhanpur by order dated 7/13 October 2020 and was relieved from Aligarh.

He challenged the transfer before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 618 of 2020, in which an interim order dated 5 November 2020 directed that he would not be compelled to join at the new place of posting.

The transfer order was subsequently withdrawn by the respondents on 29 November 2021, and the applicant joined at Aligarh on 1 December 2021.

Instead of releasing salary for the period from 14 October 2020 to 30 November 2021, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 14 January 2022, adjusting 320 days of Earned Leave and 93 days of Half Pay Leave to regularise the applicant’s absence.

Whether the respondents could suo motu adjust the applicant’s Earned Leave and Half Pay Leave to regularise his non-joining period without obtaining his consent?

Whether the period from 14 October 2020 to 30 November 2021 should instead be regularised as Extraordinary Leave under Rule 32 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, in the circumstances arising from the interim order in O.A. No. 618 of 2020?

The Tribunal applied Rule 7(2) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, under which one kind of leave cannot ordinarily be converted into another kind without the consent of the employee.

It also applied Rule 32, which permits the grant of Extraordinary Leave in special circumstances where no other leave is admissible, or where other leave is admissible but the Government servant applies in writing for Extraordinary Leave.

The Tribunal relied on Smt. Bhagwati Yadav v. Union of India & Others, O.A. No. 831/2024 (CAT Principal Bench, decided 14 July 2025) and Rishi Nath Behal v. Union of India & Others, O.A. No. 1004/2022 (CAT Allahabad Bench) as supporting authorities on regularisation of such intervening periods.

The principle of no work, no pay was also considered relevant to the treatment of the period during which the applicant had not actually worked.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not worked at the transferred station during the disputed period, but his non-joining occurred in the context of the Tribunal’s interim direction that he should not be compelled to join at the new place of posting.

Although the respondents were entitled to regularise the intervening period, they could not, without the applicant’s consent, appropriate 320 days of Earned Leave and 93 days of Half Pay Leave merely by issuing the impugned order.

Applying Rule 7(2), the Tribunal held that the respondents’ unilateral adjustment of leave was impermissible.

In view of the special circumstances created by the litigation and the interim order, the appropriate course was to consider the non-joining period as Extraordinary Leave under Rule 32 rather than compulsorily exhausting the applicant’s accumulated leave.

It directed the respondents to consider and regularise the applicant’s non-joining period from 14 October 2020 to 30 November 2021 as Extraordinary Leave under Rule 32 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, instead of adjusting his Earned Leave and Half Pay Leave without consent.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.