IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1725 of 2011() --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13633/2006 Dated 01/09/2011 ) .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------ 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 RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 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. BY ADV.MR. BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A.No. 1725 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th November, 2011 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J: The unsuccessful writ petitioner is before this court challenging the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge declining interference in the writ petition. The said writ petition was filed seeking to set aside Ext. P6 order passed by the first respondent and to direct the respondents to refund all the amount already recovered from the amounts due to him, pursuant to the objection raised by the Audit Department. 2. The sequence of events is as follows: The appellant, was an employee of the first respondent, who retired from the service while working as Inspector on 30.11.2004. Earlier, while W.A.No. 1725 OF 2011 2 working as a conductor, he chose to remain absent unauthorisedly from 12.03.1994 to 21.06.1994 and thereafter from 07.03.1995 to 11.12.1996. However, in the service book, the leave was shown regularised, as supported by a medical certificate. The appellant had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 33780 of 2005 which culminated in Ext. P5 judgment, directing the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in respect of the grievance, within the time as specified therein. It was accordingly, that the issue was considered and the claim was rejected as per Ext.P6, which was impugned in W.P.(C) No.13633 of 2006. 3. The case of the petitioner/appellant before this Court was that, as per Ext. P2, leave for the relevant period was already sanctioned; that the service book contained the medical certificate pasted therein; that in response to the audit objection raised by the concerned authorities, the claim of the petitioner W.A.No. 1725 OF 2011 3 was recommended by the third respondent as per Ext. P3 and that Ext.P4 representation was preferred before the first respondent for redressal of the grievance. Since no positive action was forthcoming, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) 33780 of 2005, leading to Ext.P5. 4. The case projected by the petitioner in the present writ petition was considered by the learned Single Judge and it was found that Ext. P2 order of sanction did not contain anything to infer that the leave sanctioned was 'medical leave'. On the other hand, the period of absence from duty w.e.f. 12.03.1994 to 21.06.1994 and from 07.03.1995 to 11.12.1996 was ordered to be treated only as “eligible leave”, that too, based on the submission/representation dated 22.01.1999. A copy of the said representation/submission is not produced before this Court. The dispute appears to be based on the fact that, unless the leave sanctioned is 'medical leave', the same is not liable to be W.A.No. 1725 OF 2011 4 reckoned as part of the service for the purpose of reckoning or granting increments or for fixing the retirement benefits. 5. True, the petitioner's claim was recommended by Ext. P3 sent by the third respondent. Even this document does not refer to the previous/initial spell, i.e. in respect of the period from 12.03.1994 to 21.06.1994, whereas only the subsequent spell is dealt with and recommended. Similar is the position, when the petitioner/appellant preferred Ext. P4 representation, wherein nothing was mentioned about the initial/previous spell. The matter was considered by the first respondent pursuant to Ext. P5 and the course and conduct of the petitioner/appellant, with reference to his service, has been specifically dealt with. It is revealed from Ext. P6 that the appellant, while working as Conductor at Cherthala was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram City on 11.03.1994. Though he was admitted to duty at Thiruvananthapuram w.e.f. 10.06.1994 F.N., he started his first duty only on 22.06.1994 and was remaining unauthorisedly W.A.No. 1725 OF 2011 5 absent from 12.03.1994 to 21.06.1994 and from 07.03.1995 to 11.12.1996. Later, the petitioner was re-admitted on duty on 02.11.1996 and in May 1997, he was transferred back to Cherthala. Much thereafter, the petitioner put in a representation dated 22.01.1999 (which has been referred to in Ext. P2 sanctioning the leave) to grant leave for the period of unauthorised absence. It was considering the said request, that Ext. P2 sanction was given to treat the said period of unauthorised absence as 'eligible leave'. 6. Going by the materials on record, it is very much evident that the leave granted to the petitioner was only the 'eligible leave' and Ext.P2 nowhere mentions that the leave granted was 'medical leave'. This being the position, the case put forth by the petitioner that the leave applied for and sanctioned was 'medical leave' is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. The objection raised by the audit department is perfectly within the four wall of law, which in turn has been accepted and appropriate W.A.No. 1725 OF 2011 6 proceedings have been issued by the respondents, which is not assailable under any circumstance. We do not find any reason to interfere with the verdict passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk