IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 30332 of 2000(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANAND SHANKAR UPADHYAY, DY. DIRECTOR (ACUACULTURE), M.P.E.D.A. SUB REGIONAL CENTRE (ACQUACULTURE), P.161/1 (3RD FLOOR), V.I.P. ROAD ULTADANGA, CALCUTTA-700 054. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (M.P.E.D.A), (MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), M.P.E.D.A. HOUOSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR, M.P.E.D.A HEAD OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036. ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 SRI. E.K. NANDAKUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 30332/2000. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 19-12-1994. EXT.P2 MEMORANDUM DT. 26-12-1994. EXT.P3 BOND EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 1-2-1995. EXT.P4 LEAVE APPLICATION TOGETHER WITH LETTER DT. 1-2-1995. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ION OF PETITIONER'S CONTROLLING OFFICER AND PROJECT DIRECTOR OF MPEDA DT. 1-2-1995. EXT.P6 MEMORANDUM DT. 23-2-1995. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 28-2-1995. EXT.P8 REPRESENTATION DT. 17-9-1998. EXT.P9 MEMORANDUM DT. 9-10-1998. EXTP10 REPRESENTATION DT. 28-10-1999. EXT.P11 MEMORANDUM DT. 9-8-2000. EXT.P12 CIRCULAR DT 31-12-2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 30332 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an employee of the 1st respondent. He wanted to undergo Ph.D course in a subject which, according to him, is in the sphere of the duties assigned to him in the M.P.E.D.A. by availing of study leave for which he obtained admission. According to him, by Ext. P2 dated 26-12-1994, the 2nd respondent informed him that his request for study leave can be agreed to, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner submits that as stated therein, the petitioner executed Ext. P3 bond. Subsequently the petitioner submitted Ext. P4 leave application. By Ext. P6 dated 23-2-1995, the petitioner was informed that petitioner's request for study leave for a period of two years commencing from 1-3-1995 cannot be agreed to. He was directed to apply for EL/HPL to the extent there is leave to his credit and for Extra-Ordinary Leave for the remaining period of the study programme. The petitioner filed Ext. P7 application for EL, HPL and EOL. The same was granted. The petitioner thereafter completed his Ph.D course and rejoined duty on 6-3-1998. Thereafter, he submitted Ext. P8 application requesting that his leave period may be treated as study leave and he may be given all benefits applicable to study leave. That application was rejected by Ext. P9. The petitioner again submitted a representation Ext. P10, which was also rejected by Ext. P11 dated 9-8-2000. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P9 and P11 in this original petition, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P9 memorandum dated 09-10-1998 and Ext. P11 memorandum dated 09-8-2000 by the 1st respondent. (ii) issue a writ in the nature or any other appropriate writ, O.P.No. 30332/2000 -: 2 :- order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to pay the petitioner's leave salary treating the 36 months of leave period from 08-03-1995 to 05-03-1998 spent by the petitioner during higher study as study leave and to regularise the remaining period of 176 days by granting 141 days as HPL (Half Pay Leave) and 35 days as EOL (Extra Ordinary Leave).” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Ext. P12, the service rules applicable to officers and employees of the Central Government of the corresponding grades or status are applicable to the employees of the 1st respondent also. Going by Chapter VI of the Central Civil Services Leave Rules, the petitioner is entitled to avail of study leave in so far as the conditions prescribed in those Rules are satisfied, which are clear from the documents produced by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he should have been given study leave with all benefits like salary for the leave period etc. 3. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, who would submit that sanction of the study leave is not automatic and the same can only be on satisfying the conditions attached thereto. After considering the request of the petitioner for study leave as early as on 23-2-1995 by Ext. P6, the petitioner had been informed that study leave cannot be granted and he may apply for EL/HPL and EOL. The petitioner did not even protest and in compliance with Ext. P6 submitted Ext. P7 application for EL/HPL and EOL, which had been sanctioned. It is only after completing the studies and rejoining, the petitioner has, for the first time, sought study leave benefits, which cannot be acceded to, is the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Ext. P6 is the order on the leave application originally submitted by the petitioner. It reads thus: O.P.No. 30332/2000 -: 3 :- “With reference to his application requesting EL/HPL/Study Leave for a period of 2 years commencing from 1-3-95, Shri. A.S. Upadhyaya, Dy. Director is informed that his request for study leave cannot be agreed to. He is directed to apply for EL/HPL to the extent to his credit and EOL for the remaining period of study programme.” As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner did not even raise any protest against Ext. P6, but in compliance therewith, submitted Ext. P7 application for EL, HPL and EOL. The first time the petitioner objected to Ext. P6 is by Ext. P8 dated 17-9-1998, more than 3 ½ years later. In fact, the petitioner has not even challenged Ext. P6 even now in this original petition. After having agreed to Ext. P6 and applied for other leave, I do not think that the petitioner can now raise a contention that he ought to have been sanctioned study leave. The grant of study leave depends upon several factors, such as exigencies of service, the satisfaction of the conditions attached thereto etc. Perhaps, if the petitioner had insisted on study leave, the respondents would not have even allowed the leave. After having made them to sanction leave on an application for EL, HPL and EOL, the petitioner cannot now turn around and contend that study leave should have been sanctioned to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/