AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is called in question by the petitioners represented by its Managing Director.
Respondent was working as a Divisional Engineer under the petitioner and had been promoted as Divisional Engineer on ad-hoc basis on 30.10.2003. He was transferred to Hassan on 05.04.2005 and was retained on 27.04.2005 at Bangalore and served till 12.04.2006. He was on leave from 08.03.2006 to 27.06.2006 and had remained absent unauthorisedly from 27.08.2006 to 20.06.2007 and was again retained in Bangalore till 31.05.2008 with instructions to report at Hassan. On 30.06.2008, the respondent took '' voluntary retirement. On 01.04.2012 the respondent herein made a representation to grant him time bound advancement benefit.
His unauthorized absence commencing from 27.08.2006 to 20.06.2007 was treated as ''dies non'' by the General Manager at Hassan. On humanitarian grounds, he was retained in Bangalore for one more year and was posted to Mobile Service Operation, Bangalore on 21.06.2007. On completion of the said period, he was relieved on 31.05.2008 with instructions to report to General Manager at Hassan.
In order to claim benefit of time bound advancement benefit, four years annual confidential reports were required to be assessed and two years annual confidential reports could not be assessed because of his ill-health. Hence, he was denied the benefit because of the absence of his annual Confidential Reports for two years. Therefore, he chose to prefer an appeal to the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in O.A. No. 257/2011.
The said appeal was contested by the petitioners herein by filing a detailed objections and consequently, the Tribunal has passed an order on 22.10.2003 stating that previous two years confidential reports alone could be verified as the vacuum of illness for a period of two years cannot be filled up in any other way. It is this order which is called in question by the petitioners.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal has adopted a pragmatic approach towards the matter in question. It is true that four years annual Confidential Reports are required for assessment and this would be the basis for granting the time bound advancement benefit.
As could be seen from the records, the respondent could not discharge his duties for about two years prior to his voluntary retirement and this was mainly due to grave ill-health. The unauthorized absence from 27.03.2006 to 20.06.2007 has been considered as the best kind of leave on humanitarian grounds. Therefore, the question of writing annual confidential reports for two years immediately prior to his voluntary retirement did not arise and that cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the Tribunal has opined that instead of considering four years, annual confidential reports of two years would be sufficient. Hence, the matter is remitted to the petitioner-Company.
The Central Administrative Tribunal has adopted right approach to the real state of affairs and no illegality or perversity is found in the order in question. It has assessed the materials on the basis of hard realities and therefore, the approach adopted is pragmatic and cannot be found fault with.
In this view of the matter, no grounds are made out to allow the appeal. Hence, the appeal'' is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary hearing stage.
No grounds are made out to issue rule. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.