IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25666 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VENU R., IST GRADE DRAFTSMAN, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RE-SURVEY), CHENGANOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RE-SURVEY), VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RE-SURVEY), CHENGANOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25666 OF 2010 (G) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a First Grade Draftsman in the Office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records (Re-survey), Chenganoor. According to him, he applied for leave without allowance, which was rejected. It is stated that, thereafter, it was found that, in similarly situated cases, leave without allowance was granted. Complaining of discrimination, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.31021/09 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing the petitioner to make a fresh application and the 1st respondent was directed to consider the same in the light of Ext.P4. Petitioner says that thereupon he submitted Ext.P6 application, which is now rejected by Ext.P8 order. It is challenging Ext.P8 order, the writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, his claim has not been considered in the light of Ext.P4, and as directed in Ext.P5 judgment. However, a reading of Ext.P8 order now impugned shows that since 21/1/2009, petitioner is on unauthorised absence and that disciplinary action was recommended against him. It is WPC No.25666/ 10 :2 : stated that, thereupon, on 30/5/09, memo of charges was issued to the petitioner and that show cause notice issued to him on 21/12/2009 to his home address was returned without serving on the petitioner, due to his non availability. It is stated that thereupon show cause is sent for publication in the newspapers and that it was in the meanwhile, he filed the writ petition and obtained Ext.P5 judgment. It is also stated that his appointing authority did not recommend his request for grant of leave on Ext.P6. 3. Thus, the pendency of disciplinary action is now at the final stages and the fact is that his appointing authority has not recommended his leave application on the reasons stated in Ext.P8. 4. In my view, no employee has right to insist that he should be granted leave without allowance as claimed by the petitioner. This coupled with the fact that, the petitioner is a person who is facing disciplinary action for unauthorised absence, cannot demand that, despite all the above, he should be granted leave without allowances. WPC No.25666/ 10 :3 : 5. In my view, the reason stated in Ext.P8 for rejecting the application made by the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp