Rajeshwar Kumar v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 06 Sep 2018 · 2018:DHC:9264-DB
Hima Kohli; Rekha Palli
W.P.(C) 3693/2017
2018:DHC:9264-DB
administrative other Procedural

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court disposed of petitions seeking compensation for duty on weekly offs, granting liberty to challenge the 1981 Government of India order governing compensatory leave and cash compensation.

Full Text
Translation output
$-23 & 24 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 3693/2017
RAJESHWAR KUMAR petitioner
Through Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA &ORS Respondent
Through Mr.Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms.Madhuri Dingra, Adv with Mi".Sanjay Kumar
Insp.(CISF).
W.R(C) 3765/2017
SAMSENPAT&Am
Through Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA &ORS
Through Mr.Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms.Madhuri Dingra, Adv with Mr.Sanjay Kumar
Insp.(CISF). ^ '
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
06.09.2018
ORDER

1. The petitioners have sought issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give monetary compensation for performing duty on weekly off days and further grant them compulsory weekly offas per the relevant rules. W.P.(C) 3693/2017 2018:DHC:9264-DB n

2. Pleadings are complete.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 01.08.1981 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India on the subject "encashment of Compensatory Leave by CISF persomiel (Non-Gazetted) for working on Gazetted Holiday etc.," in support of his plea that the Government of India has laid down the manner in which the non-gazetted CISF personnel, who are required to perfomi duties on gazetted holidays, second Saturdays and restricted holidays are to be granted compensatory leave and in cases where such a leave cannot be granted they are paid cash compensation for amaximum period of30 days in ayear.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the captioned order is being followed by the respondents consistently and the prayers made in the present petition are liable to be rejected in view ofthe specific provisions in the aforesaid order issued by the Govt. of India.

5. On enquiring from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether any challenge has been laid to the order dated 01.08.1981, he states that the said order was not to the knowledge ofthe petitioners and they have come to know about it only, on the respondents filing the same as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit.

6. In view ofthe fact that the petitioners have laid achallenge to the order dated 01.08.1981, it is deemed appropriate to dispose ofthe present petitions with liberty granted to them to assail the said order if W.P.(C) 3693/2017 page 2of[3] aggrieved thereby, by filing an independent petition.

7. The petitions are disposed of HIMA KOHLI, J f SEPTEMBER 06,2018 sr REKlU MLLI, J