IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30187 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- BIJI.U.P. HEAD NURSE (ON LEAVE ON LOSS OF PAY) ESI HOSPITAL ERNAKULAM, NOW AT 81 VICTOR WALK, HOME CHURCH, ESSEX RM 12, 4 X Q, U.K. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.MALU JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT, ESI HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30187 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Head Nurse in the ESI Department. By Ext.P1, she was granted leave without allowances for five years from 26/4/2004. It is stated that on that basis, she has secured employment in the United Kingdom, where she is continuing now. As the period was expiring, she submitted Ext.P2 application for extension of leave by another 5 years. That was rejected by Ext.P3 order, informing that the same cannot be allowed in view of the Government Order mentioned therein. Petitioner submits that she appealed to the 2nd respondent and a review was also submitted to the Minister, followed by a representation to the Secretary to Government. These requests were also rejected by Exts.P4 and P7 orders. 2. As the leave had expired and the petitioner remained on unauthorised absence, she was also been issued Ex.P8 memo of charges. It is at that stage, the writ petition is filed with the prayer to quash Exts.P7 and P8 and to direct the respondents to grant leave without allowance for a further period of five years WPC 30187/09 :2 : from 1/5/2009. 3. A reading of Ext.P3, the first order by which her request was rejected, was on the basis of a policy decision of the Government. This policy decision of the Government is not under challenge. That apart, although the Rule enabled the Government to consider and grant leave even up to a period of 20 years, still such grant of leave is always subject to exigencies of service and no Government employee has a vested or other right to insist that leave should be granted as sought for. 4. Therefore, on merits, I find no irregularity with Ext.P3 order of rejection or Ext.P7 order. If Exts.P3 and P7 are valid, evidently the petitioner was on unauthorised absence on the expiry of the leave. If that be so, memo of charges also cannot be faulted. 5. Petitioner has produced Ext.P9 and submits that since another employee has been granted leave, she is discriminated. I do not find any substance in this contention either. This is so for the reason that a reading of Ext.P9 itself show that it is a case where leave has been granted for the first time and this order is WPC 30187/09 :3 : not one extending the leave already granted. If so, Ext.P9 also does not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp