IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35061 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEKALA T.L., AMBILIKALA, MANCHADI, MALAYINKIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (SUPERVISOR, ICDS PROJECT, EDAKKAD, KANNUR DIST) BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.35061 OF 2009 (C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1 order petitioner was appointed as ICDS Supervisor for two years on contract basis. Despite the expiry of the period, on extension, she continued as such up to 2000. Again by Ext.P3 order dated 16.8.2005, she was appointed on contract basis and joined at Edakkad in Kannur District. 2. It is stated that the petitioner had availed of 3 months leave, but however continued absent beyond that period. This resulted in Ext.P4 order dated 20.3.2007, by which the petitioner was ordered to be terminated with effect from 12.12.2005, when the date on which she remained on unauthorized absence. Petitioner made Exts.P5 and P6 representations but there was no response. 3. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, when she came to know of Ext.P7, wherein another employee similarly situated was allegedly reinstated and was regularized. Thereupon she made Ext.P8 representation and approached this court by filing WP(c).NO.15334/2009 claiming parity in WPC.No. 35061/09 :2 : treatment with Smt. Sobhanakumari Amma mentioned in Ext.P7. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing the petitioner to represent to the Government in the matter. Accordingly she submitted a representation and that was considered by the Government and by Ext.P9 her claim has been rejected. It is challenging this order that this writ petition is filed. 4. As already stated, petitioner was claiming parity in treatment with smt. Sobhanakumari Amma mentioned in Ext.P7. According to the petitioner she too was a contract employee and that like her, had gone on leave without allowance. It is stated that she was reinstated and was regularized in service. In Ext.P10 it is stated that the contention of the petitioner regarding Smt. Sobhanakumary Amma is not true. It is stated that she was reabsorbed in Government service and joined in the permanent post with effect from 12.1.2005 and she availed leave without allowance while she was a permanent employee. It is also stated that on the other hand the petitioner entered leave without proper sanction beyond 3 months period while she was engaged on contract basis. From this it is obvious that the case of the petitioner does not stand on a similar footing with Smt. WPC.No. 35061/09 :3 : Sobhanakumary Amma. 5. Admittedly the rules based on which the petitioner was engaged entitled the petitioner to be on leave for only 3 months. Petitioner remained absent even beyond that period. If so under rules her claim for reinstatement as sought for cannot be granted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 35061/09 :4 :