THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.25638 of 2011 Date: 14.10.2011 Between: P. Premaiah .. Petitioner AND The District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy District, and 6 others .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.25638 of 2011 ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G. Shankar): The writ petitioner filed M.A.No.689 of 2001 in O.A. (SR) No.3571 of 2011 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal, for short). Through order dated 19.07.2011, the Tribunal dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 2. It is not discernible from the impugned order as to the facts and circumstances of the case in which the Tribunal summarily rejected M.A.No.689 of 2011 and declined to condone the delay. The controversy is that there was a shortage of about 107 days for reckoning 20 years of service for the petitioner so as to consider himself eligible for voluntary retirement. The petitioner contends that a period of 107 days is required to be added to his service as reckoned by the Government and that if the same is added to his service, his services would be for more than 20 years, so much so, he would become eligible to seek voluntary retirement from service. We deem it appropriate to briefly narrate the facts. a) The writ petitioner was selected as an Assistant Teacher in 1964 and joined duty on 18.11.1964. He seeks to retire from service voluntarily with effect from 18.11.1984. The services of the petitioner were regularized by proceedings dated 07.06.1966. He was promoted from time to time. He was promoted as Head Master in Peda Golconda Panchayath Samithi and was later appointed as Special Category SGBT with effect from 01.04.1974. While he was working as Head Master, CPS, Narsingi, he fell ill and went on leave for a period of five years 10 days with effect from 04.08.1984 with due medical certificate. His medical leave was not accepted by the third respondent on the ground that the writ petitioner availed leave for more than five years. b) The applicant was in an active service till 08.04.1984. It would be 107 days between 04.08.1984 and 18.11.1984. If he were granted leave during the said period, he would have completed 20 years of service by 18.11.1984. The petitioner consequently claims that the period of 107 days between 04.08.1984 and 18.11.1984 be treated as leave for 107 days so as to enable the petitioner to complete 20 years of service to facilitate the petitioner to retire from service voluntarily. 3. Thus, the petitioner obviously did not complete 20 years of service by the date of his retirement. We are afraid that the petitioner cannot now turn round and seek for computing the period as absence due to leave. It is the prerogative of the employer to accept the request of the petitioner for grant of leave or otherwise. When the employer of the petitioner refused to treat the period as absence due to leave, we are afraid that we cannot interfere with the same. 4. More important is the abnormal delay in presenting the application before the Tribunal. The petitioner retired from service in November, 1984. In 2011, he moved the Tribunal for a direction and in view of the embargo under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals Act, he filed M.A.No.689 of 2011 to condone the delay in filing the application. As correctly pointed out by the Tribunal, absolutely no reasons are assigned for the abnormal delay in approaching the Tribunal. There is no justification for the petitioner to try to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court at this point of time after a period of about 27 years. There is no reason to condone the delay in filing the O.A. The Tribunal was perfectly justified in dismissing the M.A. No.689 of 2011. We see no merits in this writ petition. 5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ___________ V.V.S RAO, J ____________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 14.10.2011 Isn/Kh