Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 61|Likes:
Published by abidansariali
dr radha dubey case
dr radha dubey case

More info:

Published by: abidansariali on Sep 30, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





2010 STPL(Web) 685 DEL 1Radha Dubey Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
RespondentCM No.2149 of 2010, CM 2148 of 2010 & R.A 68 of 2010 in WP(C) No. 13988 of 2009-
Decided on 19-03-2010.
Service Law – Termination
Advocate(s): For the Petitioner: Mr. Shree Prakash Sharma, AdvocateFor the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Nanda and Mr. Zeyaul Haque, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 to3.
JUDGEMENTAnil Kumar, J.-
CM No.2149 of 20101. This is an application seeking condonation of 18 days delay in filing the review application bythe petitioner.2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. Applicationstands disposed off.R.A no. 68 of 2010 & CM No.2148 of 20103. The petitioner seeks review of order dated 21st December, 2009 dismissing her petitionwherein she had assailed the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Central AdministrativeTribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.2745/2008 dismissing her original application.The petitioner has also sought directions to the respondents to produce her leave account.4. The petitioner was working as medical officer under the Government NCT of Delhi and onaccount of remaining absent from duty for considerable period her services were terminated byletter dated 23.-27.11.2007, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a
OriginalApplication No.2745/2009, titled as ‘Dr. Radha Dubey vs. Government of NCT of Delhi andanother’,
which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 13.11.2009.5. The order of the Tribunal dismissing the petitioner’s application was challenged in the writpetition being W.P.(C) No.13988/2009, filed before this Court which was also dismissed by orderdated 21.12.2009, holding inter-alia, that the services of the petitioner had not been regularized,and merely because the petitioner was being paid salary admissible to the regular employees, onthe basis of ‘equal pay for equal work’, it could not be held that the petitioner who was appointed
Delhi High Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2010 STPL(Web) 685 DEL 2Radha Dubey Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
on contract basis had been regularized. The plea of the petitioner that the termination of herservice was very harsh was also rejected by holding that alleged compelling circumstances of thepetitioner which kept her away from her employment, could not be a reason for the petitioner toremain absent indefinitely. She had been sanctioned leave only for 20 days. Though the leave wasextended for some time thereafter, however, since the petitioner kept seeking further leave, thesame was denied and she was required to join back her duty, which was disregarded by thepetitioner and even the warnings issued to her were ignored.6. The petitioner has sought review of the order dated 21.12.2009 contending that the order dated21.12.2009 proceeds on the basis that the balance leave to the petitioner’s credit had gotexhausted which, according to the petitioner is not correct and, is an error apparent on the face of the record.7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that some of the relevant rules werenot considered by this Court regarding grant of leave, and consequently, the order dated21.12.2009 is liable to be reviewed.8. This Court while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner had specifically held that amedical organization cannot be efficiently run in public interest, if the staff and employeesappointed to render services remain on indefinite leave, as absence of medical officer will resultin crumbling of the entire system and the personal difficulty of such officer cannot be acceptedbeyond a particular point. It was also held that the respondents could not be faulted for notextending the initially sanctioned leave for 20 days to about 19 months which was the period forwhich the petitioner did not report for work which resulted into the termination order beingpassed against her.9. It is well settled that the review proceedings are confined within the ambit and scope of Order47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure of Code, 1908 which contemplates that an order may be open toreview only if there is a mistake or an error in the impugned order which is apparent on the faceof the record. This cannot be disputed that an error which is not self evident and has to bedetected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be set up as an error apparent on the face of therecord. In exercise of review jurisdiction, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-heard on merits and corrected. A review petition has a limited purpose and the same cannot beallowed to be an appeal in disguise. A review does not entitle the applicant for a fresh hearing orarguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. The Courts have held in variouspronouncements that power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of lawand facts which are apparent in the face without any elaborate argument being neededestablishing it.10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to re-argue the whole matter by contendingthat the observation made in the order that the balance leave to her credit has got exhausted is notcorrect, and therefore, the petition could not have been dismissed. By doing so she is in factasking for re-appreciation of the entire pleas and contentions. Even if the entire leave to her creditwas not exhausted, the petitioner could not remain absent for almost 19 months after getting leavesanctioned only for 20 days.11. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that she was entitled for 5 yearsleave, however, the point for consideration is whether she remained absent without authorizedleave or not. In any case this plea cannot be taken into consideration this being a review petitionand not an appeal. This has not been disputed that she remained absent for 19 months, and in thecircumstances, it cannot be held that there is any patent error in the order of this Court.
Delhi High Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->