Union Of India (Uoi) vs Smt. Luxmi Gupta And Anr.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1804 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, J.

1. Petitioner's short grievance is that Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and had granted several reliefs to respondent which were not asked for by her.

2. Respondent was appointed Jr. Clerk on compassionate grounds in Northern Railways. She was relieved of some charge by order dated 29.5.1998 which she challenged. Meanwhile, she proceeded on leave from 3.6.1998 to 5.6.1998 and thereafter failed to turn up for duty. She was accordingly proceeded for major penalty and charge-sheet was issued to her on 16.9.1998. Pursuant to ex parte Enquiry conducted against her she was removed from service by order dated 31.8.1999.

3. Respondent filed O.A. 2122/1999 before Tribunal challenging order dated 29.5.1998 by which she was relieved of some charge and for promotion to the post of Head Clerk from 1982 and then to the post of Asst. Supdt. from 1984 and on the post of Office Supdt. from 1990 with consequential benefits. This was opposed by petitioner on the ground that respondent stood removed from service and no relief was liable to be granted to her. Her claim for promotion to Head Clerk or other higher posts was also disputed in the light of relevant Rules. All the same, Tribunal by impugned order quashed petitioner's order dated 29.5.1998 relieving her of some charge and order 31.8.1999 removing her from service. She was ordered to be reinstated in service on the post of Sr.Clerk and intervening period from 3.6.1998 to date of removal (31.8.1999) was directed to be regularised with the leave of whatever kind including extra-ordinary leave. To top it all the remaining period from her removal to reinstatement was ordered to be treated as on duty for all purposes with 50% back wages. Her case for promotion to the post of Head Clerk and other higher posts was also directed to be considered.

4. While this matter was being considered L/C for petitioner, Mr. Gangwani informed the court the petitioner stood already reinstated in service. All that he wanted was that it shall be left to the competent authority to decide the treatment to be given to the disputed period of absence and no work.

5. We have examined the Tribunal order and we find that Tribunal had gone all out to grant bundle of reliefs to respondent. It had even quashed her removal which was not challenged by her. A case of over-indulgence perhaps arising out of misplaced sympathy indeed. Tribunal in our view could not have granted what was not asked for by her. Nor could it have taken upon itself to regularise the absence period or to treat the no work period on duty. It is well settled that such like matters are better left to competent authority and to be dealt with in accordance with Rules. We, therefore, feel convinced that Tribunal had outstepped its jurisdiction in the matter.

6. Since petitioner has not questioned respondent's reinstatement in service, it is not necessary to deal with that aspect of the matter any more. Nor can the other directions requiring petitioner to consider her for promotion to higher post/s under Rules be questioned. That leaves us with directions III and IV which become unsustainable and are quashed.

7. Petition is accordingly disposed of and petitioner left free to deal with respondent's period of absence and also the period intervening between her removal and reinstatement and also to accord consideration to her for promotion to higher posts under Rules and pass appropriate orders within four months from receipts of this order.