Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, having retired from service on 31.03.2011 as 'Head Operator', expected to have his terminal benefits paid expeditiously. The first respondent employer, however, communicated to the petitioner Exhibit P4 audit objections seeking his response thereto. Though the petitioner submitted Exhibit P7 explanation to the audit objections, the first respondent did not choose to respond. Later, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P9 representation to the Public Grievance Cell of the Honourable Chief Minister. Though it was duly transmitted by the Public Grievance Cell to the first respondent, yet again the authorities, according to the petitioner, chose to ignore the said representation as well. Under those circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a suitable direction to the first respondent, the employer.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that, in terms of Exhibit P4 audit objection, the petitioner is said to have obtained benefit of second time-bound-higher-grade with effect from 04.08.2000, though he was entitled to the said benefit, according to the audit department, only from 01.08.2005. This objection is said to be essentially based on the petitioner's alleged lack of qualification.
4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Exhibit P10 circular issued by the first respondent, wherein regarding qualifications, it is stated that a pass in form V or equivalent and two years experience in the Tube Well Drilling Operation or in the operation of pumping plants and electrical machinery is sufficient qualification. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the audit objection in Exhibit P4 is totally unsustainable and consequently withholding terminal benefits of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
5. Be that as it may, in the light of Exhibits P7 and P9 representations said to have been submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent authorities are yet to take a decision concerning the objections in Exhibit P4. Any observations by this Court at this juncture on merits may come in the way of a free and fair adjudication by the first respondent of the issue raised on Exhibit P4 audit report. Accordingly, this Court does not intend to advert to the merits of the matter.
6. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibits P7 and P9 representations of the petitioner in accordance with law, duly taking into account Exhibit P10 circular and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-