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.