Regularization of unauthorized absence through Earned Leave is valid where duty status is not established.

The applicant, a Senior Auditor, was transferred from Rifle Factory, Ishapore to Barrackpore on 16.07.2004

He challenged the transfer in O.A. No. 423/2004, where the Tribunal directed the respondents on 06.09.2004 to decide on his retention and ordered that he not be released until then

However, the applicant had already been released on 16.07.2004

He remained absent from duty from 17.07.2004 until joining his new post on 14.10.2004

Following a letter dated 28.01.2005 from the Jt. Controller of Accounts (AN) suggesting regularization of the absence, the department regularized the period (17.07.2004 to 12.12.2004) by deducting 149 days of Earned Leave (EL), plus an additional 3 days, resulting in a "Nil" EL balance as of 31.12.2004

The applicant filed the present O.A. seeking to set aside the orders treating his EL balance as nil, arguing the period should be treated as "on duty"

1. Whether the period of absence from 17.07.2004 to 14.10.2004 should be treated as "on duty" in light of the Tribunal's previous order in O.A. No. 423/2004

2. Whether the respondents were justified in regularizing the applicant's absence by exhausting his Earned Leave balance to "Nil"

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, governing the adjudication of disputes regarding conditions of service

Principle of administrative regularisation of unauthorized absence, specifically that an employee who fails to report to a new place of posting following a release order cannot claim the intervening period as "duty" unless specifically authorized by the competent authority or a prior stay order

Doctrine that a "non-release" direction issued after the employee had already been released is functionally infructuous regarding the period of absence

The Tribunal examined the applicant’s service book and leave records, confirming that 152 total days of EL were deducted to cover the absence

The applicant’s primary contention—that the Tribunal’s order in O.A. No. 423/2004 (dated 06.09.2004) protected his status—was rejected because he had already been released from his Ishapore post on 16.07.2004, nearly two months before said order

Consequently, the direction "not to release" him could not be applied retroactively to a completed administrative action

Since the applicant did not report to his new post at Barrackpore immediately upon release and instead remained absent until October 2004, the respondents were within their rights to regularize this "unauthorized" period by adjusting it against his accrued Earned Leave

The Tribunal found no legal basis to compel the department to treat a period of physical absence from work as "on duty"

The court answered both issues in the negative, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned Memo/Office orders

The Original Application (O.A. 350/528/2011) was dismissed, and the Miscellaneous Application (M.A. 350/521/2012) was disposed of accordingly without order as to costs