GOVERMENT OF INDIA Vs. R K SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated September 26, 2000, passed in T.A. No.54/A&N/98 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit at Port Blair, has since been challenged in this writ petition. The point involved in this case is whether the absence of the respondent Rabindra Kr. Singh during the period of November and December 1992 could be treated as continuous service or would constitute a break in service in order to avail of the benefit of the scheme for giving temporary status to casual employees under the circular dated September 10, 1993 which is Annexure "J" to the writ petition.

(2.) In order to appreciate the question involved it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts in short. The respondent was engaged as a casual labour under the petitioner herein sometime in April, 1992. On account of ailment of his mother the respondent had left for the main land in November 1992. He reported for duty on January 1, 1993 and continued thereafter. A scheme was formulated by the petitioner herein which is contained in Annexure 'J" to the writ petition issued on September 10, 1993. Under the said scheme a person who was employed on March 10, 1993 and had rendered one year continuous service in the Central Government Offices, other than those mentioned in the said circular, was made eligible to certain benefit of temporary status as contained therein. On the alleged ground that the respondent's service from April, 1992 had a break in November and December, 1992 therefore, his qualifying service from January 1, 1993 till September 10, 1993 did not entitle him to the benefit of the said circular dated September 10, 1993. This had since been challenged by the respondent on the ground that the absence did not constitute a break in service before the learned Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. H.R. Bahadur, learned counsel for the respondent had supported the judgment dated September 26, 2000 passed in T.A. No.54/A&N/98. filed by the respondent Rabindra Kr. Singh before the learned Tribunal seeking the above relief to the extent of application of the scheme in his case, since been allowed by the learned Tribunal. In order to support the said judgment and decision of the learned Tribunal Mr. Bahadur had pointed out that the respondent was permitted to go to the main land on account of ailment of his mother, for which the petitioner had arranged for a ticket in the ship for his travel to the main land. Therefore, the period of absence was in effect treated as leave by conduct of the petitioner. Thus, the same cannot be treated to be a break in service and, therefore, the decision of the learned Tribunal is wholly justified.