Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2020) 08 CAT CK 0010

Vivek Sahu vs Ircon International Limited And Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 7 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application. No. 1112 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 325 words

L.Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicant joined the service of the IRCON- 1st respondent herein as Geologist, on 19.02.2018 on contractual basis. Initially it was for one year and was thereafter extended till 28.02.2020. He states that on account of serious illness of his father at Ambedkar nagar, Uttar Pradesh, he went that place and he could not resume duties on account of the delicate health of his father.

2.

He filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to release the monthly salary and dearness allowance and to pay for over time work. The applicant contends that before leaving the station, he sent a message and there was no reply.

3.

We heard Ms. Manasi Sahoo, learned counsel for applicant and Sh. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents.

4.

Even on his own showing, the applicant is not attending the duties of the respondents corporation from 20.03.2020 onwards. It is not mentioned that he is entitled to any leaves. The appointment itself is on contractual basis and hardly there exists any such facility. Once the applicant is not working for the past about 5 months, the question of payment of salary does not arise. The learned counsel for the applicant is not able to draw our attention to any provision of law that entitles her client to get his salary.

5.

Reference is made to Rule 21 of the IRCON Conduct and Appeal Rules, which provides for payment of subsistence allowance to a suspended employee. It is just un-understandable as to how that provision would help the applicant, who admittedly is not there under suspension.

6.

We do not find any merit in the OA and it is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make it clear that in case the applicant had done any overtime work, that may have been recorded by the respondents, they shall release the permissible amount for that, within four weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.