IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 13633 of 2006(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.G.PRASANNAN, S/O.LATE GANGADHARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RETIRED INSPECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., CHERTHALA, RESIDING AT `PRASANTHI', VELLACHAL.P.O, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER, K.S.R.T.C., CHIEF OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST.PERSONNEL OFFICER (PFC), K.S.R.T.C., CHIEF OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASST. TRANSPORT OFFICER, DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICE, CHERTHALA. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1.9.2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 13633/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DTD.16.11.04 BY R4. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.27.7.99 OF R2. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.23.7.94 BY R4 TO R3. P4. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.4.9.04 BEFORE R1. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C). No. 33780/2005. P6. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DTD.15.3.2006 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 13633 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. He was unauthorisedly absent for 645 days for the period from 12.3.94 to 21.6.94 and 7.3.95 to 11.12.96. In his service book it has been recorded that the same was regularised as leave without allowances on medical certificate. This was objected to by the audit party since that was not supported by any order sanctioning leave without allowances on medical certificate. Therefore, those periods were not taken into account as qualifying service for retirement benefits. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C).No.33780/2000, in which, by Ext.P5, this Court directed the Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation to consider the matter. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P6 order has been passed upholding the audit objection and rejecting the contention of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner was actually granted leave without allowances on medical ground for the periods in question. He points out that, by Ext.P2, leave was sanctioned and, by Ext.P3, the controlling officer had recommended that since the leave was granted on medical certificate, the objection w.p.c.13633/06 2 may be waived. Therefore, the petitioner would contend that since the petitioner was actually on leave without allowances on medical ground, the petitioner is entitled for the period of leave counted as qualifying service for the purpose of retirement benefits. 3. With the help of a statement filed by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the respondents would support Ext.P6 order. According to them, there is no order granting leave without allowances on medical certificate. On the other hand, as is evidenced by Ext.P2, what was granted was eligible leave for his absence from duty for the periods from 12.3.94 to 21.6.94 and 7.3.95 to 11.12.1996. According to them, only the leave without allowances granted on medical certificate can be counted as qualifying service for retirement benefits. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The only order sanctioning leave produced by the petitioner is Ext.P2, which reads as follows; “Sanction is accorded to the District Transport Officer, Cherthala to grant eligible leave to Sri.C.G.Prasannan, Conductor for his absence from duty with effect from 12.3.94 to 21.6.94 and 7.3.95 to 11.12.96. ....” 6. The petitioner has not even produced any material to show that during the said period the petitioner was actually undergoing any treatment. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had undergone a hernia operation. It cannot be believed that for a hernia w.p.c.13633/06 3 operation absence of 645 days is necessary. In fact, the only leave sanctioning order produced, Ext.P2, grants the petitioner only eligible leave. That means the period of absence would be regularised, provided the petitioner has leave to his credit. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of absence, no leave application was filed by the petitioner and that he was originally absent from duty without any application for leave. He was admitted to duty by order dated 2.11.1996 and Ext.P2 order was passed long after the same on 27.7.1999. As such, there is no acceptable material on record to show that the petitioner had applied for leave on medical certificate and that he was actually granted leave without allowances on medical ground. That being so, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P6 order. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge