L.N. YADAV Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the applicant s case are that while working as a Station Superintendent in the Railways, he retired on 31.12.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. During the period from 7.5.1997 to 30.7.2007 and from 26.11.1997 to 5.1.1998 the applicant remained under treatment of private/railway doctors, and medical certificates to that effect regarding his sickness were submitted to the concerned railway authority at the relevant time. The competent authority regularized his sickness period. Despite the order of sanction of the competent authority, the payment of the commuted leave on medical ground is still to be made. The respondents, by order dated 29/31.12.2008 (Annexure A -II), regularized the period without taking his request into consideration. Out of 96 days of sickness period, 54 days have been treated as commuted leave and remaining 41 days as HAP. At the time of retirement as well as during the year 1997 -98 there were more than 236 days of HAP leave available in the leave account of the applicant and there was no difficulty to commute the whole period of 96 days since for 96 days commuted leave, 192 days of HAP leave were required. According to the applicant, the respondent -Railways have paid only Rs. 3079/ - towards pay and allowances for the 54 days of commuted leave. Before the Adalat of the Railways, the respondent -authorities stated to have made balance payment of Rs. 4983/ - to the applicant, yet the said payment has not yet been received by him. In OA No. 3452 of 2010 the Tribunal, vide order dated 9.11.2011, directed the respondents to consider his claim and pass a speaking order. RA No. 17/12 filed by him seeking review of the order dated 14.11.2011 passed in OA No. 3452 of 2010 was disposed of by the Tribunal, vide order dated 3.2.2012, with direction to the respondents to comply with the order passed in OA No. 3452 of 2012 within a stipulated order. Instead of considering his claim and passing a speaking order in compliance with the Tribunal s direction, the respondent -authorities, vide order dated 28.3.2012 (Annexure A/1), reiterated their earlier decision. As a result, the applicant has not yet been paid his aforesaid dues. It is contended by the applicant that the respondent -authorities have failed to comply with the orders dated 9.11.2011 and 3.2.2012 passed by the Tribunal. Hence, he has filed the present O.A. seeking the reliefs as referred to earlier.

(3.) REFUTING the stand taken by the respondents, the applicant has filed a rejoinder reply wherein he has more or less reiterated the same averments and contentions as in the O.A.