IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29710 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MINU VALIYATH, AGED 32 YEARS, L.P.S.ASSISTANT, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, KUTTOOR SOUTH P.O., KANNATTUPADY, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, KUTTOOR SOUTH, P.O.KANNATTIPADY, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29710/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a LPSA working under the 4th respondent. She had availed of leave without allowance for the period from 17.2.1997 to 16.2.1999 and from 17.2.1999 to 16.2.2002. It is stated that, before the expiry of the extended period of her leave, she rejoined duty on 6.6.2001 and is continuing without any break. It is stated that, on her rejoining, she has been paid salary only from 2007 December. 2. According to the respondents, the reasons appears to be that, though the petitioner was admitted to duty on reporting, nobody had applied for cancellation of the unavailed portion of leave and in the absence of regularization of the same, the action of the respondents in not granting salary or giving other benefits for the aforesaid WP(c).No.29710/08 2 period, is to be upheld. 3. Admittedly, petitioner had availed of long leave without allowance and it is also a fact that, she had rejoin ed duty as early as on 6.6.2001 and is working in the school since then. Though it is true that, the petitioner ought to have got her unavailed leave cancelled by making appropriate application in time, now that she was permitted to rejoin duty, it is only appropriate that the first respondent considers Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner and Ext.P6 application made by the Manager in this behalf. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the first respondent shall consider EXts.P5 and P6, if the same have been received and are pending, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a coy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. vi ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE WP(c).No.29710/08 3 vi.