Saira Bibi v. Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WP.CT/25/2023 Saira Bibi Vs.

Union of India and others Mr.Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents August 25, 2023 [SR] Item No.6 The petitioner has retired from service on attaining of her normal age of superannuation on 30th April, 2021. Being aggrieved by the order of the Director, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Directorate of Health Services dated 28th January, 2021 whereby the intervening period with effect from 10th September, 2021 till her resumption of duty has been directed to be regularized by granting admissible leave, she approached the Tribunal by filing original application. The learned Tribunal disposed of the matter by passing direction upon the authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner as per law.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Upon hearing the parties in details and upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the period in dispute is from 10th September, 2020 till her resumption on 22nd January, 2021. The leave encashment for the said period which the petitioner would have received, has been directed to be adjusted on account of her alleged absence from duty.

Learned advocate representing the petitioner categorically submits that the petitioner regularly attended duty during the said period, but the Administration deliberately did not permit her to sign the attendance register as she was transferred to a different place.

It appears that the transfer order was thereafter revoked and the petitioner was directed to report to duty on and from 22nd January, 2021 which the petitioner readily accepted.

Learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering from various old age ailments and she requires finances to continue her medical treatment. If the leave encashment is adjusted, then, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced.

It appears from the figures which has been placed before this Court by the learned advocate representing the Administration, that a paltry sum of Rs. 41,231/- is the amount for the period during which the petitioner has been alleged to remain absent from duty.

The petitioner asserts that she regularly reported for duty but she was not permitted to sign the attendance register. It appears that being aware of the fact that she may be marked absent if she did not report for duty, the petitioner attended the duty on regular basis. There is no plausible reason to arrive at a contrary finding. The petitioner ought not to be penalized for no fault of her own.

Accordingly, the Court thinks it fit to direct the Administration not to adjust the leave encashment during the period the petitioner was treated as absent. The arrears of the terminal benefit of the petitioner be released by the

Administration at the earliest but positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The calculation forwarded by the Administration handed over by the learned advocate representing the Administration be retained with the records.

The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3,4,5 & 6 filed in Court be retained with the records. The writ petition stands disposed of.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

( Amrita Sinha, J. ) ( Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)