Dilbagh Singh v. Union Of India And Others

CWP No. 21861 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21861 of 2014 DATE OF DECISION :- September 08, 2015 Dilbagh Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others.

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Dilbagh Singh-petitioner in person. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Advocate for respondents no. 2 to 4. *** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes/No 2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes/No M.JEYAPAUL, J.

1.

The Writ Petition is filed by Dilbagh Singh-party in person praying for review of the order passed by the Tribunal. 2.

Heard the submissions made by the petitioner-party in person and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3.

It is found that the 3rd respondent, having considered all the claims of the petitioner as directed in O.A. No. 473/PB/2007 on 11.3.2008 by the Tribunal, passed a considered order rejecting PARVINDER SINGH 2015.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 21861 of 2014 various claims of the writ petitioner.

4.

The petitioner had claimed interest for the delayed payment of salary. The 3rd respondent found that such a request could not be acceded to as he had not attended the office during that period. The said period was regularized by sanctioning earned leave/commuted leave as per the request made by the writ petitioner and the salary was paid on 30.07.2001 after regularization. 5.

The writ petitioner has sought for transport allowance during the leave period. The 3rd respondent has rejected such a claim on the ground that transport allowance was not admissible to an employee during his absence from duty. There is no merit in his claim that the period during which he litigated before the Court and was not on duty should be counted for the purpose of calculating the earned leave.

6.

We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the plea of the writ petitioner to review the order passed by the 3rd respondent.

7.

The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE (DARSHAN SINGH) JUDGE September 08, 2015 p.singh PARVINDER SINGH 2015.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh