IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 34614 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P. PADMADAYA, SUPERVISOR (RELIEVED FROM SERVICE) INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME PROJECT OFFICE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT SIVAPATHAM, PUNNAMOOD, PALLICHA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ANIL K.NAIR SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 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. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 34614 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as Supervisor, ICDS Project, Payyannur. After joining duty, she took leave on medical grounds for long spells, one of which went beyond 3 months. The petitioner's application for leave was ultimately rejected. The petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 15304/2008, in which, this Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the Government requesting relaxation of the provisions of Rules 66 and 88 of Part I of K.S.R and directed the Government to consider the same. The petitioner submitted Ext. P7 representation , which was rejected by Ext. P8 order on the ground that contract employees are not entitled to leave without allowances. The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P8 seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside Exts.P5 and P8 orders. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders on Ext. P7 representation with due consideration of the directions in Ext. P6 judgment. iii. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the termination of service of the petitioner. iv. Issue a writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service benefits.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. It is settled law that contract employees are not entitled to any leave other than what has been provided for in Appendix VIII of Part I of K.S.R. In the above circumstances, I do not find any W.P(C) No. 34614 of 2008 -: 2 :- infirmity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.