Competent authority must determine disputed absence and medical claims under applicable rules through a reasoned order.

The applicant, an employee of East Central Railway, challenged his transfer order dated 15.09.2022.

During the pendency of the Original Application, the transfer order was modified by a subsequent order dated 17.09.2024, and the applicant was brought back to his initial place of posting at his own request.

The applicant nevertheless claimed consequential relief concerning his absence from duty between 13.10.2022 and 12.04.2023, asserting that the absence was due to illness and that he had submitted a sickness report.

The respondents contended that the issue required consideration by the competent authority under the applicable rules and procedure and did not concede the genuineness or justification of the entire period of absence.

1. Whether the challenge to the transfer order dated 15.09.2022 survived after the order was modified and the applicant was restored to his initial place of posting.

2. Whether the applicant’s claim concerning the period of absence from 13.10.2022 to 12.04.2023, including reliance on the sickness report and consequential benefits, should be determined by the competent authority under the applicable service rules.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative proceeding becomes infructuous when subsequent events grant or substantially secure the relief sought, leaving no effective adjudication on the original challenge.

It further held that questions concerning the genuineness, sufficiency, and evidentiary value of a medical or sickness report, the justification for absence, and the manner in which the period should be regularised fall within the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the applicable service rules, instructions, and prescribed procedure.

Consequential benefits may be considered only after the competent authority determines the status of the disputed period in accordance with law.

Since the applicant had been brought back to his initial place of posting pursuant to the subsequent order dated 17.09.2024, no effective relief remained to be adjudicated concerning the original transfer order dated 15.09.2022; that part of the OA had therefore become infructuous.

However, the claim relating to the period of absence remained live.

The Tribunal declined to determine whether the applicant was genuinely ill or whether the sickness report was sufficient, as those matters required factual and administrative examination by the competent authority under the applicable rules.

It consequently directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s claim and pass a reasoned and speaking order, without expressing any opinion on the merits of either party’s position.

Regarding the applicant’s absence from 13.10.2022 to 12.04.2023, the competent authority was directed to consider the claim, including any sickness report submitted by the applicant, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, instructions, and procedure, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of receiving the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal did not direct that the period be treated as leave, duty, or otherwise, and left all contentions open.

Consequential benefits were to be considered only if otherwise admissible and depending on the decision regarding the disputed period of absence.

No order was made as to costs.