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. 11930 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KARUNANIDHI S/O. LATE M.KRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, U D CLERK, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, KARUNAGAPPALLY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY DOMINIC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the complaint dated 31.3.2010 submitted by the petitioner to th Ist respondent along with enclosures. // true copy // P.S to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.11930 OF 2010(M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the 2nd respondent. His grievance is that from March, 2010,he was not paid salary. It is stated that in June, 2010, he was promoted as Village Officer and was posted in Kozhikode District. According to the petitioner, it is thereafter salary is not paid. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has explained the proceedings that have been initiated against the petitioner for unauthorized absence and also explained the periods during which the petitioner, according to him, was repeatedly absent from duty. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that major penalty proceedings were recommended against the petitioner. In so far as the grievance of non payment of salary from March, 2010 is concerned, it is stated that salary was not disbursed to the petitioner because he was unauthorizedly absent from duty for about 20 working days in WPC.No. 11930/2010 :2 : March, 2010. The dates on which the petitioner was allegedly absent are also disclosed in the counter affidavit. According to the 2nd respondent, in view of the above, unless the petitioner has submitted applications for leave in order to regularize the absence for the aforesaid period, salary cannot be drawn and disbursed. It is also stated that without regularizing the above period of absence Last Pay certificate cannot be issued and it was therefore that respondents are unable to pay salary even for the period subsequent to June 2010 when the petitioner was promoted. 3. Answering the plea in the counter affidavit regarding the petitioner's absence and that because of the lapse on the part of the petitioner, important documents including the attendance register of the office was lost, petitioner has stated in the reply affidavit that in March, 2010, he has attended duty on all the 20 days mentioned in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. It is also stated that his presence in the office is testified by the entries in the Discharge Register, Distribution Register and Stamp Account Register maintained by the office of the 2nd respondent. WPC.No. 11930/2010 :3 : 4. Therefore from the pleadings of the petitioner and the respondent, the alleged absence of the petitioner during March, 2010 for a period of 20 days and it is non-regularisation is the reason for non-payment of salary. On the other hand, according to the petitioner he was present in office on all days and office records of the second respondent itself testify his claim. 5. In view of the above, in order to enable the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner, I feel it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent should verify the discharge Register, Distribution Register and Stamp Account Register maintained for March, 2010, and ascertain as to whether the petitioner was absent or present in the office, during the 20 days when he was allegedly absent. On such verification, if the 2nd respondent finds that the petitioner was present in the office, the 2nd respondent shall make a report to the first respondent and the first respondent will pass orders regularizing the unauthorized absence of the petitioner in March, 2010. Verification shall be completed by the 2nd respondent within ten days from the date of production of a copy of the judgment and a report shall be made within one week thereafter. It WPC.No. 11930/2010 :4 : is directed that on its receipt, the first respondent shall pass orders in the light of the above within 4 weeks thereafter. 6. Depending upon the outcome of the above exercise, salary will be disbursed and LPC of the petitioner shall be issued, in order to enable the petitioner to draw salary from the Kozhikode District where he is presently working as the Village Officer. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/