Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition, has prematurely approached this Court after disposal of the earlier writ petition being SBCWP No. 1896/2014 - Anand Kishore Pareek Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., decided on 13.03.2014, in which this Court observed as under: - The petitioner was working as Development Officer in the respondent Oriental Insurance Company. Certain disputes about his prolonged illness and leave taken by him arose as he was absent from duty for the period 26/2/2013 to 19/7/2013 for 143 days. When he reported back on duty after the said date, the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duties. The petitioner has been making representations to the respondent Insurance Company for allowing him to join his duties and copies of such representations are placed at Annex. 12 dated 9/9/2013 and Annex. 13 dated 26/9/2013. The petitioner, thereafter, has also said to have applied for taken voluntary retirement and a notice for the said purpose has been served upon the respondent Company vide Annex. 19 dated 4/3/2014, purportedly, to take voluntary retirement w.e.f. 3/6/2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the VRS application of the petitioner is not likely to be accepted before the petitioner is first allowed to resume his duties and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have not allowed the petitioner to join duties from 23/7/2013. The dispute in the present case, obviously, require determination of question of facts as to for what reasons, the petitioner was on leave and whether that leave was sanctioned and whether the period of his absence can be regularised against the leave due in his account or not. All these questions are, admittedly, yet to be decided by the respondent employer. In this view of the matter, no mandamus direction can be given to the respondent Company to allow the petitioner to resume his duties and the respondent Company is expected to decide the pending representations of the petitioner in this regard. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction and liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent Company with a representation and the competent authority of the respondent Company shall decide his application/representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to him, by a speaking order expeditiously within one month from today.
(2.) THEREAFTER though the petitioner was asked to submit his representation to the Chief Regional Manager and the said representation has been filed by him on 11.04.2014 vide representation (Annex. 23 to CW No. 4777/2014), however, the same has not been decided by the said authority and, in absence of the same, the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner is considered to be premature. The petitioner in another writ petition has also assailed the order (Annex. 9 to CW No. 4808/2014) dated 24.02.2014, in which he was placed at the minimum of Pay Scale of Development Officer Grade -II Rs. 8,280/ - with effect from 01.04.2013 on the basis of findings of authority concerned that cost ratio of the petitioner was continuously high for last 10 years from the year 2003 -04 to 2012 -13. The said order was passed by the Chief Regional Manager.
(3.) MR . Anil Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Development Officer Grade -I, and therefore, without giving an opportunity of hearing, he could not be placed in the Development Officer Grade -II at Rs. 8,280/ - on the basis of aforesaid continuous high cost ratio.;