IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37707 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- E.M.JAFARKHAN, S/O. MOINKUTTY, AGED 37 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (ON LEAVE), KEAZHEDATH HOUSE, CALICUT AIR PORT P.O., (VIA) KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVNAM, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, SYSTEM OPERATION CIRCLE, KANNUR - 670 592. BY SC – SHRI.K.S.ANIL FOR K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. -------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37707 of 2008-L --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner, while he was working as Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Relay Sub Division at Nallalam, Kozhikode, had availed of leave without allowance for 5 years with effect from 1.5.2003 on the strength of Ext.P1 order. Even after the expiry of the period of leave the petitioner did not report for duty. Therefore, Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued by respondent No.3, on 24.9.2008, directing the petitioner to state the reason as to why he shall not be removed from service with effect from 1.5.2008. 2. It appears that petitioner had thereafter submitted a request before the authority to extend his leave. By Ext.P4 communication dated 12.11.2008 petitioner was informed that the request cannot be considered favourably. 3. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 representation before respondent No.1 praying W.P(C) No.37707 of 2008-L : 2 : that he may not be removed from service. The limited prayer is that a direction may be issued to respondent No.1 to effectively consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 4. It has to be noted that Ext.P5 no statutory character. Similarly respondent No.1 is not statutorily bound to take a decision on Ext.P5 as mandated by any Act or regulation. In that view of the matter, the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus cannot be entertained. 5. However it will be open to respondent No.1 to take an appropriate decision in the matter strictly on its merit and in accordance with law if Ext.P5 is pending consideration. The writ petition is disposed of. ab A.K.BASHEER JUDGE