IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22503 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SIJU PAUL, U.P.S.A., MSM HSS, KALLINGAL PARAMBA, KALPAKANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM, ADV. SRI.JOY C. PAUL. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MOHAMOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22503/2008-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: ORDER DTD. 14/06/00 ISSUED BY D.P.I. EXT.P.2: ORDER DTD. 06/10/07 ISSUED BY R.1. EXT.P.3: JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.26782/2006. EXT.P.4: ORDER DTD. 20/07/06 ISSUED BY R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22503/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is working as a UPSA at MSM HSS, Kallingal Paramba in Malappuram District. Petitioner submits that, he was selected for B. Ed training under departmental quota and Ext.P1 is the communication issued in this behalf. Without availing of leave, he was relieved and he underwent training during the period from 21.6.2000 to 31.3.2001. 2. Subsequently, on the instructions of the superiors, on 24.1.2006, petitioner applied for leave for the training period and Ext.P2 order was issued, granting leave under Rule 88 of Part-I KSR, subject to the condition that the course period will not count for increment, higher grade, accumulation of earned leave or pension. It is challenging the condition in Ext.P2, excluding the period for the WP(c).No.22503/08 2 aforesaid purposes, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Though application was made only on 24.1.2006, the fact remains that the leave availed of by the petitioner was during the period from 21.6.2000 to 31.3.2001. During that period, 3rd proviso to Note-2 of Rule 33(b) of Part-I KSR, which provided for reckoning the period for increment purpose was in the statute book and was deleted only with prospective effect from 11.5.2005. If that be so, the condition imposed in Ext.P2 that the leave period will not count for increment cannot be sustained. 4. This position is also covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this court in WP(c). No.26782/06, a copy of which is Ext.P3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that Ext.P3 judgment has been implemented and benefits has been granted to the petitioners therein by Ext.P4 order issued by the first respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. WP(c).No.22503/08 3 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P2 to the extent it excludes the leave period of 21.6.2000 to 31.3.2001 for increment purpose. Consequently, it is declared that the period will be reckoned for all service benefits of the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.22503/08 4