(1.) The petitioner, Ali Moinuddin, is an ex-employee of the respondent-Electricity Board, i.e., Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, In this writ petition he has questioned the legality and the validity of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10-6-1988 and the order of the 1st respondent dated 9-11-1990 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to sanction increment to him for the leave period from 24-9-1980 to 27-3-1985 with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The factsleading to the filing of mis writ petition as pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition be noted briefly as under: While working as Accountant in the Board, the petitioner fell sick due to Arthitheties (sic arthritis) complaint and he had to undergo a long-drawn medicare and treatment and he was advised not to attend to the duties. The petitioner applied for leave from time to time and ultimately after recovery from illness he reported for duty on 27-3-1985. The petitioner was working under the Superintending Engineer (Operation), City Circle, Hyderabad. The period of leave regularised by the Superintending Engineer is as under: "Leave period Nature of leave sanctioned by the S.E. Reference No. & date in which the Leave was regularised 16-6-1980 to 15 days E.L. Memo No. Estt/C4/860/80, 10-7-1980 dt: 16-8-1980 11-7-1980 to 29 daysHPL Memo No. Estt/C4/860/80 8-8-1980 dt: 16-8-1980. 9-8-1980 to 15 days EI 23-8-1980 Memo No. Estt/C4/1175/80 24-8-1980 to 28daysHPL dt: 27-9-1980. 20-9-1980 21-9-1980 to 3daysHPI Memo No. Estt/C4/804/85, 23-9-1980 dt: 9-7-1985. 24-9-1980 to 31-10-1981 1-11-1981 to 31-1-1982 1-2-1982 to 30-4-1982 upto 31-12-1982 E.O.L.onM.C. upto 30-6-1983 Memo No. Estt/C4/804/85 upto 30-9-1983 dated 9-7-1985" upto 31-12-1983 upto 31-3-1984 upto 25-5-1984 upto 30-10-1984 upto31-12-1984 upto 28-2-1985 1-3-85 to 27-3-85 Thereafteewards the Superintending Engineer sent a proposal to the 2nd respondent recommending that the Extraordinary Leaveperiod be counted for the purpose of granting increments to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent rejected the proposal on the ground that the Superintending Engineer did not have the power to, sanction EOL for a period of more than six months and also on the ground that the petitioner did not mention the nature of the leave in his leave application. This order was passed by the 2nd respondent on 10-6-1988. That led to the petitioner preferring Revision before the Board-1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent by an order dated 9-11-1990 affirmed the view taken by the 2nd respondent and held that the petitioner is not entitled for sanction of increments during the period of EOL from 24-9-1980 to 27-3-1985. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) Although this writ petition was filed in the Court on 16-1-1991 and the respondents are served with notices and represented by the Standing Counsel, till date no counter is filed. Therefore, the Court has to decide the merits of the case on the basis of the sworn statement and the material placed before the Court by the petitioner.