IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15304 of 2008(V) PETITIONER: -------------- P.PADMADAYA, SUPERVISOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME PROJECT OFFICE PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.ANIL K.NAIR SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN SRI.PRAMJI PAUL VAZHAPPILLY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE(A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS, PROJECT OFFICE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15304 of 2008 V ------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Supervisor, Integrated Child Development Scheme Project, Payyannur. Though the petitioner and others were included in the rank list published by the Public Service Commission for the post in question, they were not advised due to lack of vacancies. Pursuant to a direction issued by a Bench of this court in W.A.No.2876/02, the Government appointed the petitioner and similarly situated persons on contract basis, against the vacancies which should have normally gone to the promotees. Apparently, ever since the petitioner took charge, she started facing problems with ailment of dislocation of vertebral disk and she was on leave for different periods, the details of which are given in Ext.P4. Since the leave sought for is in excess of 3 months, it could only be sanctioned by the Government and hence, the leave application was forwarded to the Government. The Government informed the petitioner as W.P.(C).NO.15304/08 :: 2 :: per Ext.P5 that a person appointed on contract basis cannot be granted leave in excess of three months as per the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules. Ext.P5 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner's appointment is on contract basis. If that be so, under Rule 88 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to avail more than three months' continuous leave. The stand taken by the Government in Ext.P5 does not warrant any interference. 3. Learned Senior counsel Mr.K.R.B.Kaimal submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is always open to the Government to exercise its power under Rule 7 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, relaxing the rigour of Rules 66 and 88 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. May be, this is so. But the petitioner has not approached the Government with such a prayer. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Government W.P.(C).NO.15304/08 :: 3 :: seeking relaxation of Rules 66 and 88 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules in the matter of the leave sought for and rejected as per Ext.P5. If an application, in this regard, is filed within two weeks from today, the Government shall consider the same in accordance with law. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not availed of any leave with effect from 1.2.2007, orders in that regard shall be passed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge