IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 OP.No. 24321 of 2001(U) ----------------------- PETITIONERS(S): --------------- 1. Prof. GEEVARUGHESE JOHN, SHARONS-EDATHARATHAKKETHIL, MANGARAM, PANDALAM. 2. PROF. JOHN KURUVILLA, S/O. P.M. KURIVILA, AGED 57 YEARS, PULLOLICKAL, AZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.E.S.ASHRAF SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE COMMISISONER & PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVENRMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the letter NO.12258/D2/87/ H Edn. of the Government. Ext.P2. True copy of the G.O(Rt.) NO.1395/97/ H Edn. of the Government. Ext.P3. True copy of the letter of the Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P4. True copy of the G.O(MS) NO.63/2000/ H Edn. of the Government. Ext.P5. True copy of the letter NO.24205/D1/2000/ H Edn. of the Government. Ext.P6. True copy of the G.O(MS)NO.50/2001/ H Edn. of the Government. // true copy // P.S TO JUDGE. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- O.P. NO.24321 OF 2001(U) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were granted leave without allowance for the period from 1.6.1977 to 31.5 1982 and from 1.6.1982 to 31.5.1987. According to the petitioners in Ext.P1, it was clarified that leave without allowance granted by the Management of the Private Colleges coming under the direct payment scheme to their staff prior to the issuance of GO(MS) No.136/85/H.Edn dated 14.6.1985 can be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension unless otherwise specified in the orders sanctioning leave. It is stated that Ext.P1 was cancelled by Ext.P6 dated 2.4.2001, only with prospective effect. It is contended that their leave was sanctioned prior to Ext.P6 and therefore they are entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P1. They are also relying on Ext.P4 where the period of leave without allowance was reckoned as qualifying service. 2. First of all Ext.P1 relied on by the petitioners itself shows that the period will be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, unless otherwise specified in the orders OP. No.24321/01 :2 : sanctioning leave. In view of the said contention it was for the petitioners to have satisfied this court that the grant of leave without allowance was without any condition as specified in Ext.P1. In this writ petition petitioners have not produced the orders granting them leave without allowance and therefore this court is not in a position to conclude that there is no condition in the order granting leave to them. In so far as Ext.P4 relied on by the petitioners is concerned, a reading of Ext.P4 itself shows that the order sanctioning leave to the beneficiary of the said order did not contain any condition, that the period will not be reckoned as qualifying service. It was therefore that by Ext.P4 the benefit was granted. Since the petitioners have not established that the grant of leave without allowance was without any condition, this court is not in a position to grant any relief to them. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ OP. No.24321/01 :3 : ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- O.P. NO.24321 OF 2001(U) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T