IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30901 of 2007(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.MUKUNDAN UNNY, S/O LATE K.T.MENON, "MIDHILA", BYE PASS JN., CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, 678007. NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE COYALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON 12/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI ,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 30901 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Director of Agriculture at Koyalmannam. Apparently, he had applied for leave without allowance for taking up employment abroad for a period of five years. Though he had been sanctioned leave without allowance for five years, he had served as a Volunteer under the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for a period of four years from 1992 to 1996. Later he was again granted leave for a period of three years for taking up employment abroad. Before expiry of the leave he rejoined duty on 21.11.2005. The petitioner submits that he ought to have been granted leave without allowance for taking up employment abroad without subjecting it to the conditions prescribed in Appendix XII A of Part I KSR and therefore his leave should not entail forfeiture of service. Ext.P2 representation was therefore submitted by him for rectification of what he calls as an error in Ext.P1 order. This was followed by Ext.P3 representation. The petitioner had later approached this court in WP(C).No.5821/2006 which was disposed of directing his representations to be considered. This resulted in Ext.P5 order. The Government considered the petitioner's request WPC.30901 /2007 2 and found that it was not the case of the petitioner that he proposed to work as U.N.Volunteer and in fact against the column reasons for the application for leave 'he had mentioned that it is for the purpose of better employment abroad'. In the circumstances, the Government reiterated the stand that sanctioning of the leave under Ext.P1 by treating it as subject to the conditions under Append XII A of Part I KSR is correct. Apparently, the petitioner sought for reconsideration of this on the premise that one Mr.Balachandran had also been deputed as U.N.Volunteer but his leave has not been treated as one subject to Appendix XII A. the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order inter alia on the ground that different yardstick had been applied in the case of the petitioner . 2. A statement has been filed by the respondent. It was pointed out that in so far as the petitioner is concerned it is obviously from Ext.P1 that leave was sanctioned under Appendix XII A of Part I KSR and therefore this naturally entails forfeiture of the seniority. The case of R.Ramesh Chandran referred to by the petitioner has also been explained in the statement. His case stands on a different footing. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner had applied for leave without allowance for taking up employment abroad and leave was WPC.30901 /2007 3 actually sanctioned by the Government subject to the conditions in Appendix XIIA of Part I KSR, there is no justification on the part of the petitioner in seeking variation of the conditions after having availed the leave. After all except Appendix XII A, there is no other provision by which the petitioner could have availed of the leave for such prolonged period. In my view the claim made by the petitioner is misconceived. I do not find any error of jurisdiction or error of law in Ext.P5. The allegations of discriminatory treatment have also not substantiated. For all these reasons, the writ petition is bereft of merit. Hence the same is dismissed. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC.30901 /2007 4