IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31021 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VENU.R, IST GRADE DRAFTSMAN, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RE-SURVEY), CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RE-SURVEY), CHENGANNOOR. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.31021 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of November, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a First Grade Draftsman in the Survey and Land Records, Office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records (Resurvey), Chengannoor. By Ext.P1, he applied for Leave Without Allowance for five years. However, that application was rejected by Ext.P2 communication dated 03/05/2008 relying on Ext.P3 Government Order, G.O.(P) No.196/2007/RD, dated 06/06/2007. 2. After receipt of Ext.P2, on an application made by the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, he was given Ext.P4 information disclosing that 8 persons like him were granted Leave Without Allowance. He has also produced Ext.P5 Government Order, G.O.(P) No.348/2009/RD dated 31/08/2009, which shows that operation of Ext.P3 Government Order has since been freezed. If that be so, the ground on which Ext.P1 application has been rejected by Ext.P2 cannot operate any WP(C) No.31021/2009 -2- more against the petitioner. In view of this, this writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for Leave Without Allowance to the 2nd respondent. It is directed that in case, if such an application is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered in the light of Ext.P5 order referred to above and untrammeled by Ext.P2. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg