ADMIRAL SUPERINTENDENT Vs. A. SREEKUMARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The O.P.(CAT) has been filed challenging Exhibit P2 order of the Tribunal. Suffice it to notice that the respondent was appointed as a Highly Skilled (Grade-I) (for brevity "H.Skl") employee in Naval Dockyard, Visakhapattanam on 21.06.1978. He commenced his apprenticeship from 07.03.1977 and his appointment was after satisfactory completion of the same. The respondent continued in his employment and filed a voluntary retirement application on 08.09.1998. He remained absent from 09.09.1998. The ground for applying for voluntary retirement was that he had been suffering from Arthritis, which disabled him from continuing in employment. The application for voluntary retirement was rejected on 31.05.1999 and on 13.07.1999 the respondent was asked to report for duty, which order admittedly was not served on the respondent. Later in the year 2002, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent for unauthorized absence. That concluded in the removal of the respondent from service, with effect from 01.04.2004.

(2.) The respondent challenged the order issued by the appointing authority. The Tribunal found that the punishment is disproportionate and directed the appointing authority to re-consider the same. An Original Petition (CAT) was filed by the applicant, which was disposed of by Annexure A1. The learned Central Government Counsel Sri.T.V.Vinu takes us through the order and submits that the Court had directed compulsory retirement to be imposed on the petitioner-employee. In pursuance of the same, the Department had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, with effect from 01.04.2004, as is seen from Annexure A1 produced in the O.A., from which arises the present O.P.(CAT).

(3.) It is argued by Sri.T.V.Vinu that Annexure A1 does not direct the compulsory retirement to be related back to 08.09.1998, after which date the unauthorized absence commenced. It is also argued that if that was the position, then it would confer a benefit on the respondent, who has unauthorizedly absented himself, to pension during the period of unauthorized absence. It was, hence, the Department directed compulsory retirement with effect from 01.04.2004. The operative portion of Annexure A1 judgment at paragraph 21 is pointed out to distinguish it from the earlier statement at paragraph 20 that the petitioner is "at least entitled for a compulsory retirement from 09.09.1998 so that he will be eligible for the minimum pension as per the Rules". The extracted statement is only an observation which does not bind the official respondents; is the compelling argument.