IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 28350 of 2002(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.MURALEEHDARAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, PERFORMANCE AUDIT, (ATTACHED TO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, PALAKKAD. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B.REMANI FOR R1,2,3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.48250/2002 IN O.P.NO.28350/2002 Y CLOSED 19/01/2009 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE FROM THE PETITIONER DTD. 25/01/2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF COVERING LETTER DTD. 6/02/2002 WITH THE APPLICATION. EXT.P3: COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 5/2/2002. EXT.P4: COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 17/02/2002. EXT.P5: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 14/03/2002 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FROM THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 19/03/2002. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 31/08/2002 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/10/2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 14/3/2003 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/06/2003 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.28350/2002-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by communications Exts.P5 and P7 by which his application for sanction of leave on medical grounds for the period from 06/02/2002 to 11/03/2002 was not allowed. He was working as Junior Superintendent in performance Audit of Assistant Director of Panchayats, Palakkad. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had submitted application for leave from 06/02/2002 to 11/03/2002 along with medical certificate. Ext.P5 will show that the Panchayat Assistant Director/District Performance Audit Officer, Palakkad has forwarded the application along with the certificates, for appropriate direction, to the Director of Panchayat, Thiruvananthapuram, on the presumption that the medical certificates are not in order. The petitioner submitted a representation as per Ext.P6. Thereafter, by Ext.P7, the Director of Panchayat rejected the application for leave after finding that the report of the Deputy Director was correct. But this was with a further observation that if the applications and medical certificates are resubmitted in accordance with relevant orders in the matter, the same can be verified O.P. No.28350/2002 -:2:- and appropriate action can be taken by the Deputy Director. Along with the reply affidavit, the petitioner has produced Ext.P10 communication issued by the Director of Panchayat, Thiruvananthapuram to the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Palakkad, dated 14/03/2003. In the said communication the Director has reminded the Deputy Director about the earlier direction in the order dated 31/08/2002 (Ext.P7), wherein, in regard to the consideration of the application for leave, specific directions were issued from that office to the Deputy Director. It is reiterated in Ext.P10 that if appropriate directions have not been issued to the petitioner so far, in the light of the direction contained in Ext.P7, the petitioner can be directed to resubmit the application and medical certificate after curing the defects and to enable the Deputy Director to do so, the applications dated 06/02/2002, 11/02/2002, 17/02/2002, 23/02/2002 and 01/03/2002, along with the allied documents filed by the petitioner have been forwarded to the Deputy Director. Still by a later communication dated 25/06/2003, Ext.P11, the Assistant Director, Palakkad has informed the petitioner that in Ext.P10 no specific directions have been issued by the Director in regard to the applications for sanction of leave. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand taken in Ext.P11 cannot be said to be correct in the light of the clear O.P. No.28350/2002 -:3:- directions issued by the Director in Ext.P10. It is pointed out that, presumably, the pendency of the writ petition is the reason for not taking any action in the matter. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the leave applications were not submitted in the proper way, which has resulted in the action taken by the official respondents in the matter. It is also pointed out that the third respondent is not having any bias against the petitioner. 4. Going by Ext.P10 dated 14/03/2003, which is a later communication after the filing of the writ petition, the Director has issued appropriate directions to the Deputy Director to see that the applications are resubmitted after curing the defects. In that view of the matter, it is obvious that the pendency of the writ petition may be the reason for respondent Nos.2 and 3 for not taking any action in the matter. Hence, the stand taken in Ext.P11 that no directions have been issued is not correct. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- 5. The respondents 2 and 3 will take appropriate action as per the directions in Exts.P9 and P10, of the Director of Panchayat, in regard to the curing of the defects in the applications of the petitioner for sanction of leave. The petitioner will be afforded an opportunity to resubmit the O.P. No.28350/2002 -:4:- applications after curing the defects. Now as the petitioner has retired from service, he will be allowed to submit a fresh representation seeking to regularise the period from 06/02/2002 to 11/03/2002. 6. It is pointed out that the above period has not been reckoned for the purpose of pension. Therefore, the respondents should take appropriate action to see that the above period is regularised. The petitioner will produce necessary documents/certificates for curing the defects. 7. On getting the required applications from the petitioner and report from the third respondent, the second respondent will pass appropriate orders in regard to the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of the period of leave. Orders will be passed in that regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Depending upon the outcome of the same, the retirement benefits that is being received by the petitioner will be revised accordingly. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms