Prahald Sharma V. Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi and Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajasthan, Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur and Commissioner, Income Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Chamber Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

CW/13283/2011

AI Insights

The case involves Prahald Sharma, who challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding his transfer and subsequent claims for pay and allowances during a period of absence. Sharma was transferred from Jaipur to Behror on 13.07.2004 and filed an OA against this transfer, which led to a status-quo order. Despite this, he was allegedly not relieved until 22.11.2004, and he continued to perform duties and received overtime pay. The Tribunal's decision not to grant him pay for the period of absence was based on his failure to apply for regularizing this absence as leave. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no grounds for interference.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803019 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar [1998] 0 AIR(SC) 2722
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV JAIN; NIKHIL SIMLOTE
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARMENDRA JAIN
• Keywords: Contempt petition; Status quo; Transfer order; Overtime duty; Regularizing absence

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13283 / 2011 Prahald Sharma S/o Shri Moti Lal Sharma R/o Plot No.80, Sunder Nagar, Khatipura Road, Jaipur ----Petitioners/Applicants Versus 1. Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajasthan, Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 3. Commissioner, Income Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Chamber Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur 4. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain Mr. Nikhil Simlote on behalf of Mr. R. B. Mathur _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 03/10/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the OA filed by the applicant/petitioner herein. 2. The facts of the case, so far as relevant for the purpose of deciding the point involved in this case, are that the applicant was transferred from Jaipur to Behror vide order dated 13.07.2004. Against this order the applicant approached the Tribunal filing OA No. 510/2004 on 22.11.2004. The Tribunal vide order dated (2 of 3) [CW-13283/2011] 23.11.2004 while issuing notices granted order of the status-quo. It is case of the petitioner that he was not relieved vide order dated 22.11.2004, copy of which has been placed on record as Ann.A/2. It is further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 23.11.2004 passed by this Tribunal, he attended duty on 24.11.2004 and has also performed overtime duty for the period from 14.00 hours to 20.00 hours and respondents also paid wages for over time to the applicant, but the reply, so filed by the respondents in the earlier OA No. 510/04, is that the petitioner stood clearly relieved vide order dated 22.11.2004. The petitioner also filed a Contempt Petition No. 56/04 for non-compliance of the order, annexing copy of the relieving order dated 22.11.2005 in which no date of relieving has been mentioned. The order of transfer was cancelled on 25.01.2005. Thus the petitioner has claimed pay and allowances for the period w.e.f. 23.11.2004 to 25.01.2005. 3. The Central Administrative Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has rightly given the following directions not to pay him benefit:- “From the reply filed by the respondents it is evident that the applicant has not submitted any application for regularizing the aforesaid period of absence and in case the applicant submits such application for regularizing the said period as leave of the kind due in that eventuality, the competent authority may consider request of the applicant for regularizing the said period of absence as leave of the kind due.” 4. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Hence no case is made out for interference. 5. The judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner in the case (3 of 3) [CW-13283/2011] of Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar [1998] 0 AIR(SC) 2722 will not apply in the facts of the case. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (K.S.JHAVERI)J. B.M.Gandhi/Gourav-56 "