9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Indian Oil Corporation, Range Barauli Oil Refinery, he went on leave w.e.f. 23.7.1990. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was suffering from arthritis and was unable to perform his duties. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was declared fit to resume his duties by Chief Medical Officer, Fatehgarh vide his letter dated 24.02.1997. Accordingly, the petitioner resumed his duties on the post of Inspector w.e.f. 14.3.1997. An endeavour has been made to show that the petitioner was on medical leave w.e.f. 23.07.1990 till 13.03.1997. 4. The case set up by the petitioner is that the respondent authority never objected to the absence of the petitioner, or directed the petitioner to resume duties, except by one communication in the year 1994 to the effect that the petitioner should join duties within fifteen days. The petitioner, however, could not join on account of illness. It has been projected before the Court that the petitioner was never called by Civil Surgeon, Farrukhabad, as such, the petitioner did not appear before the said authority for medical examination. 5. Vide order dated 21.4.1997, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , approached this Court by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.66513 of 2005, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2005. The order reads as under: "List revised. None present. Petition is liable to be dismissed in default. Even otherwise, the grievance of the petitioner had been that the Central Administrative Tribunal while delivering the Impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2005, did not consider the arguments made by him. If it is so, it may be a good ground for review, but not filing a writ petition though the Tribunal has given a relief to the petitioner that in case he makes a representation before the competent authority, ventilating all his grievances, it will be decided by a speaking and reasoned order. In such a fact situation, we do not see any ground to interfere in the matter. It is accordingly dismissed." 11. The petitioner filed Review Application No.27 of 2006, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.7.2007. Accordingly, respondent no.1 i.e. Secretary, Ministry of Finance was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner. 12. The petitioner, accordingly, made a representation to Secretary, Ministry of Finance on 9.8.2007. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to examine whether the exceptional circumstances' exists in this case. After examination of all factors, it was ascertained that there are no such exceptional circumstances in this case. The applicant had sought leave on medical ground, but it was ascertained that there have been a number of lapses on the part of the applicant. For instances, a) In the year 1994, the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Jamshedpur, had issued directions to Shri Balak Ram to join his duties within 15 days. Shri Balak Ram did not join the duties and submitted another leave application, without any medical certificate. b) In the same year, i.e. 1994, Shri Balak Ram was also directed to appear before the Civil Surgeon, Farrukhabad. However, Shri Balak Ram did not appear. Thus, considering all relevant factors, his application for sanction of leave was rejected and same was communicated to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, vide letter dated 10.12.2007 (copy enclosed for reference)." 14. Original Application No.604 of 2008 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed while upholding orders dated 10.12.2007 and 7.2.2008. The said order passed by the Tribunal dated 3.9.2010 has been imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 8 of the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal from the side of the respondent has been extracted in para 5 of the impugned order and is not being referred to for brevity's sake. No rejoinder to the said asserted facts was filed by the petitioner and, therefore, we find no illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the orders passed by the official respondents did not warrant any interference by the Tribunal. 22. A court of law is required to adjudicate on the matter/ material placed before it in context of the pleadings. The Tribunal has considered the material placed before it and the pleadings filed by the respective parties and has, accordingly, adjudicated. No error in the findings thus recorded can be traced. 23. We have also taken into account the Rule position, as has also been mentioned in order dated 7.2.2008, portion of which has been extracted above. Under Rule 12 of the C.C.S. (Leave) Rules, 1972, the President could sanction such continuous leave for period exceeding five years. Admittedly no such sanction has been granted. 24. The petitioner in the alternative could show exceptional circumstances for sanction of leave. No such c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
