SHAKUNTLA DUTTA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein has claimed the relief that the respondents be directed to pay her salary for July and August, 1993 with interest.

(2.) The case of the applicant in brief is that while posted as Trained Graduate Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School Dehar in the year 1993 she remained ill and availed medical/extraordinary leave w.e.f. May 28, 1993 to July 11, 1993 and September 1, 1993 to September 6, 1993 and also availed summer vacations w.e.f. July 12, 1993 to August 31, 1993 with the permission of and sanction by the competent authority/ Head of office vide Annexure -A/1. The applicant while under treatment was transferred to Government High School Nihri but was later adjusted in Government Senior Secondary School Debar where she joined after recovery from illness. Her pay however, was ordered to be withdrawn from Government High School Nihri and the matter was accordingly referred to respondent No. 3 who had not drawn and disbursed the salary of the applicant from July 12, 1993 to August 31, 1993 despite the sanction of leave having been conveyed to him which was admissible to the applicant under Rule 28 of CCS. (Leave) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Several written and verbal requests of the applicant to respondents 2 and 3 for release of her vacation salary did not yield any fruitful result. The applicant therefore, issued legal notice Annexure - A/2 to the respondents for immediate release of her outstanding salary put of no avail. Hence this original applicant n on the ground that such refusal is arbitrary and illegal as the applicant has been singled out for non payment of salary.

(3.) The respondents contested the claim. In their reply while admitting I that the applicant remained on sanctioned leave for 112 days as claimed pave denied the claim for salary for the vacation period on the ground that the applicant was entitled to enjoy vacations in combination with |or in continuation of any kind of leave as per the provisions of Rule (4) of the Rules and the maximum leave for 180 days only could be granted as per the provisions of Rule 26 (2) of the Rules. It is further claimed that in case the vacation is combined with earned leave the whole spell will be reckoned as earned leave for the purpose of applying the limit upto which earned leave can be taken at a time and in case the employee had not sufficient earned leave at the time of proceeding on leave in combination or in continuation of vacation the remaining period will have to be regularized as leave of the kind due but the vacation period cannot be isolated or treated as separate period. Therefore, the applicant who had sand witched the vacation period with other leave, is not entitled for salary as the whole spell from May 28,1993 to September 6, 1993 has to be reckoned as leave within the meaning of Rule 28 (4) of the Rules because the contrary is not provided under the Rules and the applicant is misconstruing the provisions of Rule 28(4) of the Rules. Hence the claim has been denied.