THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.28195 of 2010 Between: Km. Razia Sultana ..... PETITIONER(S) AND .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.28195 of 2010 ORDER: (per KGS, J) The first respondent was a Junior Lecturer in Urdu and she has since retired from service as she was unauthorisedly absent from duty for more than 9 years. Consequently the employer terminated her services. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent moved the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and the order of termination would appears to have been set aside on technical grounds. Be that as it may, the first respondent was reinstated to service. Later the Government passed orders on 26-2-1998 treating the leave available to the first respondent as leave during the period of her absence from duty. The rest of the period of absence from duty was treated as Dies-Non. The order of the Government referred to above dated 26- 2-1998 was confirmed by the Tribunal. Subsequently the first respondent preferred writ petition before this Court. The order treating the period of absence as leave to the extent leave was to her credit and treating the rest of the period as Dies Non was questioned, but the same was affirmed in the writ petition. The first respondent subsequently laid O.A.No.12679 of 2009 before the Tribunal assailing the legality of the memo dated 30-11-2009 whereunder the request of the first respondent to treat the period of absence as duty was rejected. The Tribunal held that as the first respondent was already reinstated into service, the termination order became illegal, and ordered that the petitioner consequently was entitled to have her services treated from 9-6-1987 till 18-10-1992 i.e. from the date of termination till the date of reinduction into service, in terms of Rule 54A of the Fundamental Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the Government preferred the present writ petition challenging the orders of the Tribunal. The first respondent indeed was absent from duty for as much as over nine years. The absence was totally unauthorized. Consequently her services were terminated. For one reason or the other, the termination orders were found to be incorrect on technical grounds or otherwise and the first respondent was reinducted into service. Once the first respondent was reinducted into service FR 54-A(1) automatically comes into play. However, the Tribunal has passed the orders directing the treating of the period from 9-6-1987 till 18-10-1992 as duty for all purposes and directed to refix the pension and pensionary benefits accordingly. Under Rule 54- A(1), it is the Government which shall regularize the services of a Government servant who was dismissed, removed, or compulsorily retired from service. We agree with the learned Government Pleader that the Tribunal ought not to have passed orders treating the period of absence as period on duty but should have directed the Government to consider the case of the 1st respondent taking FR 54-A into consideration. However, it is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that once the Tribunal earlier passed the order rejecting the claim of the first respondent questioning the proceedings dated 26- 2-1998 and 30-11-1999, which were confirmed by the High Court, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to once again treat the period of absence from 9-6-1987 to 18-10-1992 as period on duty. This contention has no force in view of provisions under FR 54-A which contemplates that the Government shall regularize the period of absence taking into consideration the directions of the court, if any, in that regard. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the competent authority to consider sympathetically regulating the period of absence of the 1st respondent from service from 9-6-1987 till 18-10-1992 keeping in view the provisions contained in FR 54 and the fact that the termination order passed against the 1st respondent was set aside by the Tribunal. The competent authority shall dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to above directions, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal stands modified and the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________ K.G.SHANKER, J. 2-2-2011 KK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.28195 of 2010 2-2-2011